# Socialism or Capitalism?



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Doesn't just living life tell you that profit is necessary for being an adult - not just within a specific economic system - but* life* tells you (and I wish I had known this when I was a kid) that you need to build in a buffer of time and money or whatever resources - because it is foolish, or putting yourself in an irresponsible position, - to let yourself run yourself out to the edge with no reserves.


Yes. We require certain things to be able to sustain life and without them we'd die. This is irrespective of economic system. Economic systems come into place when you stop becoming fully self-sufficient in providing those basic things needed to sustain life.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@PowerShell I don't deny we live in an interdependent society or that there are times when a corporation could need to get hauled into court.

I'm just Soooo* fed up with people who think profit is a dirty word!* That is insane, just crazy, stupid talk from people who have never built anything.*​*


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> I'm just Soooo* fed up with people who think profit is a dirty word!* That is insane, just crazy, stupid talk from people who have never built anything.*​*


Oh yeah I absolutely agree. Most people are lazy and unambitious but expect instant riches for their minimal efforts. It's really pathetic.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Well. . . . . there is a lot of turmoil and economic shifting in the world, some of it an unavoidable change that was a long time coming. It was good for America that we could pay factory workers a lot of money to show up - but that gravy train couldn't last forever and we have to figure out new ways to work. 

The thing is, it is comforting to people to blame this on a faceless boogieman of corporate greed, or to demonize silicon valley - BUT most people doing this kind of preaching are doing it just to gather up their own minions and sell books, so . . . . It's not real - it is scapegoating. Where we go from here is more complicated and takes work from individuals to learn and adapt.

Now if you wanna talk about if Bezos should pay employees for the time it takes to do theft protection for Amazon - that may be worth going to court about - and we do have courts for that. _Laissez faire, doesn't mean lawlessness or anarchy._ It means freedom to buy and sell and choose how you make a market for yourself as an employee or something else.

I'm not sure how things are working out for countries that have free higher education though. We do have people from all over the world here so anybody listening with a free degree?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@RubiksCubix 

*What do you think about the internet being the first functioning example of a means of production being owned by the people?* You could say it doesn't produce, but don't we live in a new age where production doesn't mean what it once did?

Before the W.W.W becoming sooo mainstream, I thought the basic definition of socialism was obviously ridiculous, I mean ownership of the means of production belonging to the people makes no sense. Most people WANT to exchange labor for symbols of social status and creature comforts or neccesities. They *don't* want to think of how to OWN systems and make hard choices to RUN anything - like a whole company. I mean since the industrial age people got used to being specialists, capitalism gives them that opportunity - division of labor. That means somebody needs to specialize in the number crunching. Shouldn't that be in the hands of whoever puts up the risk for building the system? I mean that only makes sense. But the internet is a whole new type of investment - and it was started, even if almost accidentally, by government (and maybe one particular INTP who loves thinking and making a better system, just for the thrill of doing it? ****).

The whole freebie give-away culture of the internet has an indirect route to profit, but it has me thinking that even the nature of OP question was a question for the industrial age?

**** If you need a ref. Google Tim Berners-Lee


----------



## Floating (Aug 11, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> @RubiksCubix
> 
> *What do you think about the internet being the first functioning example of a means of production being owned by the people?* You could say it doesn't produce, but don't we live in a new age where production doesn't mean what it once did?
> 
> Before the W.W.W becoming sooo mainstream, I thought the basic definition of socialism was obviously ridiculous, I mean ownership of the means of production belonging to the people makes no sense. Most people WANT to exchange labor for symbols of social status and creature comforts or neccesities. They *don't* want to think of how to OWN systems and make hard choices to RUN anything - like a whole company. I mean since the industrial age people got used to being specialists, capitalism gives them that opportunity - division of labor....


Production surely just means what it always meant and always will mean doesn't it? It's just that we produce different things and the division of labour continues to create more and more specialisms , like you say. 
But I think your objection to the madness of the concept of "owning the means of production" is probably demonstrative of why this debate is always so darn difficult: There are a few buzz words, like "socialism" "individualism" and so on, and a few one liners like " ...the means of production being held in common ..." and "... the free choice of the individual", and all these turns-of-phrase and pieces of jargon get thrown around endlessly despite the fact that they are immensely vague and up getting used to mean so many things that they could refer to just about anything and be used to justify or argue just about anything. 

My strategy has always been to ask myself "Is this strictly capitalist or socialist? Or can it be both?". 
E.g. Is corporate greed and argument against capitalism? No. You can get greed in both socialist and capitalist societies. Is the relationship between business and government an argument against capitalism? No. You can get corruption in both. Is the freedom to choose and the benefit of markets an argument in favour of capitalism? No. You can have them in both. Is the profit motif evil? Not necessarily... profit can be done in a useful way and in a useless (or even damaging) way, just as a socialist agenda could produce either good or bad results.

When we're talking of these things we're essentially discussing "tactics" as oppose to "strategy", i.e. deciding whether to get the bus or the train before we've decided where we are going. 

Socialism is about people basically having more control over their working life, and since it's their working life that allows them to live and prosper, it's essentially about allowing them to sustain a life in a way which utilises the maximum freedom possible. That's the irony...it almost sounds completely like the first principles of libertarian capitalism. It's all because of the "wishy-washiness" of the terms socialism and capitalism. There are many varying forms of socialism, some of which can even contain free markets... indeed some socialists of the past were actually free market proponents, but they believed the free market was only possible under socialism. 

So, it's impossible and counter-productive to have debates on the subject framed in this manner. I mean, who would object to the first principles of socialism? No one does, yet many people say that the most realistic way of delivering such objectives is through nearly-free market capitalism. Well, do you call such a person a capitalist or a socialist? Maybe both. Like I say there are market socialists, and there are also free-market proponents who genuinely and sincerely believe that the free market is the best way to help the poor and needy and, despite my emphatic disagreement with that, I'm not going to call them evil as it's clear that there intentions are noble.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Floating love your avatar. (And comments about greed and tactics)

The pivotal question is What process is best for people to have *control over their working environment*?
The best answer is to figure out what they have to offer that brings the most leverage for them and benefit for society and employers in the marketplace. If they fuck up the productivity of a working, useful system that has willing buyers in the marketplace, because they just want what they want - everybody loses. What is changing in a good way might be the options people have for leverage. But we are in an awkward adjustment stage and still dependent on industrial age thinking.

Productivity - we have a new definition or a non-industrial age definition of what a product is. Public interest, yes we could sell that with TV ads in the 60's, but with the barrier to entry of owning a movie studio etc. I'm not suggesting we can all get rich by being YouTuber stars, just sayin physical investment of materials and physical resource processing is what capital was good for. Public interest can have a million facets to exploit now - and this is a *product* that re-defines productivity.

I think if we want to pick a boogie man, the culprit is a financial industry divorced from producing anything. Money is not evil, pretend money is evil - money that does not represent anything being produced is like theft. This gets complicated and how do we put it on track? Money is a social agreement of trade, meaning you as an individual have to figure out what you have to offer. Yes we can have social systems in place to handle problems that need a collective effort but at the core we are forever in an interdependent world, how can we do anything but trade value for value? When we trade on pretend value (credit with no plan to make good) everything is screwed up.

China has a corner on productivity with socialistic control - but they are in a unique spot in their own history aren't they? And they have a market for the worlds physical resources - for now.
Technically the "Chinese people" don't have control, the government does.

One thing I wonder about is investment money flowing again into tech industries and how some of that will turn out to be pretend exchange of value and cause another bubble.

The only hope is *a new wave of value creation* that can be systemized to make use of a work force that justifies the existence of an american "middle class".


----------



## _Timshel (Sep 1, 2014)

Both.. capitalism leads to socialism. (According to Marx historical theory anyways.)


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

_Timshel said:


> Both.. capitalism leads to socialism. (According to Marx historical theory anyways.)


Or in the case of China, Socialism is gradually leading to a free market economy? Once enough people are lifted out of the extreme end of rural disconnection (in China) - they won't be satisfied with central or public vote decisions about what "production for use" means? Cuba and China are not pure socialist economies today; parallel markets exist.

*Isn't that what it comes down to? central or public vote decisions to mediate production for use OR* *private production based on public market demand? * 

Huge shifts from manufacturing to knowledge/ technical work in an information age, has caused turbulence for the American middle class and a downward spiral for people living close to the edge of survival. Socialism looks good when people are afraid.

*But what happens if we no longer produce for market demand?* This is a bigger problem than most people can see?
In the name of kindness, we reduce life to something like herd animal grazing existence? It's not that people won't do useful work without a capitalistic system, but individuals will no longer want to have brain children just to hand them over to be bastardized by some non-specialized committee. The internet, and related consortium activity shows some public management and cooperation without property ownership and monetary organizing - but how far can we stretch this implication?


----------



## _Timshel (Sep 1, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> Or in the case of China, Socialism is gradually leading to a free market economy? Once enough people are lifted out of the extreme end of rural disconnection (in China) - they won't be satisfied with central or public vote decisions about what "production for use" means? Cuba and China are not pure socialist economies today; parallel markets exist.


For the record, I'm not a Marxist, I was just trying to be contrary. I don't think Marx's theory of history and his ideology in general is very accurate, interesting but not accurate. I would say you're right that Cuba and China are not pure socialist economies, so who really knows how accurate Marx is anyways? I'm not an economist, but socialism never looks good to me. Why create universal poverty instead of extincting it? Furthermore, I do have an example how socialism would not work: my sociology teacher told us that she would give us all the grade of the person who scored the highest on the next test. What do you think happened? SEVEN people out of thirty-five actually studied to get a good grade on it. If we lived in a socialist society where everyone was equal, competition would be lost. This isn't Utopia; this is a world of humans who are not good at heart and never will be, and it is a world of lazy and stupid human beings. Socialism will never work, and as much as I hate to admit it, neither will anarchism or communism.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

INTJcuriosity said:


> I'll say capitalism because it "mimics" the natural world: adapt or die; the strongest will survive and perpetuate the species


Doesn't the strongest always win? Isn't that the definition of the strongest, that it wins?



I think it's all about the rules of the game. The strenght of capitalism is the rules are very clear and easy for everyone to follow: It's all about making economic _profit_. If you make profit, then you will grow. If you don't then you will go. 

The weakness of capitalism is that... well there isn't really any connection between making profit and making our world a better place. Sometimes there might be, but often it can be very much the opposite. 


The strenght and problem with socialism is that it starts at the other end. Socialism is in theory all about making our world a better place. But you can't really operationalize this into some clear economic principle. There are no such rules. Everything is up to human _responsibility_. We must actually _decide _on what we prefer between different incommensurable values. We can't just calculate what's the best course of action.

Sure socialism would likely have a price mechanism, somewhat different than under capitalism but still: It takes into account economic costs and benefits. But unlike in a capitalist society, something being economically profitable doesn't mean that it should be done. Under socialism people would very likely chose to shut down profitable businesses and promote non-profitable businesses because other reasons than pure economical reasons can be more important. 


I would say that socialism is clearly preferable. I'm sure socialism would bring about a much better world to live in. The question is, are we humans at our current state able to rule such a society? Are we responsible enough?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_timshel_ I appreciate your school test analogy^. Only the seven top people had any reason to make an effort. *One popular point being made today is that people want to be useful and many people do work, though they may not be able to quantify it for "Market" purposes.
*
I don't think we can say that people are all naturally stupid and lazy - or that poor people must be stupid and lazy. But we all get smarter and more organized when we can see and feel the results of our actions - to a point. Someone who is only focused on survival may not be able to position themselves for improvement, thus the case for things like socialized medicine. But as was pointed out upwards in this thread, mixed economies may face liabilities because of being mixed. At the same time - all existing economies are at some level - mixed today. 

What I have not seen addressed much anywhere, is the *organizing power of capital* and how it is more fair than anything else. This is not about punishment and reward for labor. If you have an idea, and you study, you can present your plan to someone who has capital. Actual numbers help you to keep score and measure an investment. Laws are on the books for everybody to play by the same rules with same consequences. You can argue that rich people have better lawyers but what is the alternative?

Would You want your ideas to be squashed because public opinion my not have the specialization to appreciate your offering while it is in a beginning phase? If you have to sell public opinion, how do you measure that investment? Wouldn't you want the opportunity to make your case with real risk and real numbers?

This sounds all too Te coming from an ENTP? But isn't socialism like trying to run the whole world with Fe?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Eos_Machai said:


> Doesn't the strongest always win? Isn't that the definition of the strongest, that it wins?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The "public" in charge of all means of production - Is still the same public that votes with dollars in a market economy. Making a profit means enough people wanted to buy in to what you offer, and not just in theory. People buy products with their own sweat and risk represented in money.

Public morality and a better world starts in the hearts of individuals; government structures don't change that - unless you WANT a theocracy?


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> The "public" in charge of all means of production - Is still the same public that votes with dollars in a market economy. Making a profit means enough people wanted to buy in to what you offer, and not just in theory.


A corporation won't profit if no one will buy their commodities. But that doesn't mean that consumers are actually in charge of production, and that share holders and executives are just giving people what they want.





Old Intern said:


> Public morality and a better world starts in the hearts of individuals; government structures don't change that


Different social structures and different positions within these structures _do_ effect how people act. In a capitalist society you must act in accordance with what is profitable in order to be successful. But in another structure very different rationalities might be rational. 

And yes if the division between labor selling consumers and capital owning producers where abolished so that the working and consuming masses where also in charge of production, then they would make very different choices (given that this change take form in large scale, if it's just in a single company it wouldn't matter much because capitalism would still define economic rationality). Some things are very rational in a competitive market economy but would be concidered irrational in an economy that followed democratic decisions, unemployment for example and most cases of advertising, as well as a very consumerist society in general - it's the same people who decide who has to do all the work after all, and who has to live with bad quality stuff. 

It's another thing when decisionmakers also have to face the _negative_ aspects of their choices. Todays decisionmakers are a totally different class who lives under totally different conditions than the ordinary men. They don't have to do the work. They don't have to live with the common people, facing all the social problems and environmental problems etc. They can live with their own likes on a yatch or in a mansion or in a gated community.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Eos_Machai said:


> A corporation won't profit if no one will buy their commodities. But that doesn't mean that consumers are actually in charge of production, and that share holders and executives are just giving people what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We do have people who inherit a certain station in life. But it doesn't make sense that because this is true - you take away the only means for an individual to possibly build something from nothing? -Just so we can all be herd animals working for "the government" with everybody having equal grazing rights?

I mention further up in the thread that the internet is (what I see as) the first example of public ownership to the means of production - that is functional. Part of the reason this worked was because the only people even interested in building a consortium are people who have specialized knowledge and interest. Have you ever worked in anything like a church committee? all the bullshit and politics? Money is objective, insofar as it gets established ahead of time - agreed to, and can be measured, documented and negotiated logically. Otherwise - leaving everything to mob, un-specialized opinion is just stupid.

*The idea that decision makers are of a certain class is just propaganda*. I've worked with business owners for near 20 years, many not having even been in this country long enough to speak English clearly. These people built up something from nothing! while I have had factory working relatives I would not trust to run anything! This is not to say these relatives are bad people or not hardworking. The fact is they did the job they had BECAUSE they did not WANT to actually run something and sacrifice to bring new value into the world. They LIKE bitching about the people in charge instead.


----------



## Eos_Machai (Feb 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> We do have people who inherit a certain station in life. But it doesn't make sense that because this is true - you take away the only means for an individual to possibly build something from nothing? -Just so we can all be herd animals working for "the government" with everybody having equal grazing rights?


I don't want everybody to become proletarians working for the state. That doesn't seem like much of a change to me. 

When I talk about abolishing the classes it isn't as much about downgrading the capitalists as upgrading the rest of us. I want everybody to be able to express themselves more in their work, to have a share in responsibilites and a say in their everyday lives. Socialism for me is not state enforced equality, it's rather cooperative democracy. 

The capitalist society you are defending do allow a minority to build something for themselves. But even for them it doesn't seem very worthwhile. Other people still hate their guts, for various reasons. Because capitalist society is _intrinsically antagonistic_. 






Old Intern said:


> I mention further up in the thread that the internet is (what I see as) the first example of public ownership to the means of production - that is functional. Part of the reason this worked was because the only people even interested in building a consortium are people who have specialized knowledge and interest. Have you ever worked in anything like a church committee? all the bullshit and politics? Money is objective, insofar as it gets established ahead of time - agreed to, and can be measured, documented and negotiated logically. Otherwise - leaving everything to mob, un-specialized opinion is just stupid.


I don't suggest that people should decide over things that they aren't interested in and doesn't have anything to do with. But I think people are invested in their own work places, their own neighborhoods and their own society and should have the right to decide and not just be tools for other ends. I don't want to take power from the capitalists so that various politicians and bureaucrats can fill the gaps. 




Old Intern said:


> *The idea that decision makers are of a certain class is just propaganda*. I've worked with business owners for near 20 years, many not having even been in this country long enough to speak English clearly. These people built up something from nothing! while I have had factory working relatives I would not trust to run anything! This is not to say these relatives are bad people or not hardworking. The fact is they did the job they had BECAUSE they did not WANT to actually run something and sacrifice to bring new value into the world. They LIKE bitching about the people in charge instead.


I would be very surprised if even a few of the top 1% people actually lived the life of the common people. I think most of them your talking about are small business owners.

If the working men are satisfied with their situation then there won't be any revolution anyway. Socialism remains an idea. 
But if the working men would like to stop bitching about the people in charge and take charge themselves, then we're talking.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

I despise capitalism because it is based on competition, encourages materialism, wastes resources, leads to greed-based status, and pits people against each other rather than encouraging prosocial, cooperative behavior. 

The things that are wrong with my country seem to stem largely from capitalism.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

snail said:


> I despise capitalism because it is based on competition, encourages materialism, wastes resources, leads to greed-based status, and pits people against each other rather than encouraging prosocial, cooperative behavior.
> 
> The things that are wrong with my country seem to stem largely from capitalism.


Iv'e known many small business owners over 20 years. A few of them in retail, build on one strength, to bid low and sell high, including use workers who have low self esteem and can be intimidated - But this is a cliche and doesn't even represent most people. Restaurant owners, tailors, cell phone store owners, car dealers, strip mall owners - they all work very hard with significant risk and dedication - while an awful lot of Steelcase workers got paid to show up and tolerate a mild level of boredom. When you build something from nothing you take a risk, and you might not have time to coach little league.

I wonder if part of what I see on this thread is "young people" from the generation that has been taught everybody should get a trophy so nobody will feel bad?

That's not to say we don't have some serious problems in health care, and poverty. Saying this is all because of corporate greed is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

One place to look for trouble is government corruption, inefficiency, and banking systems that gamble and play games without being part of any true wealth creation.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

More T on this thread, pleeeeeaase. Bitcoin? Is this a practical working example of socialism? - peer to peer technology. How Bitcoin Works


----------



## RubiksCubix (Oct 29, 2014)

Overproduction in capitalism is called black Friday.

Underproduction in socialism is called 9 million dead Ukrainians.











Society cannot progress through centralized authority.


----------



## RubiksCubix (Oct 29, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> More T on this thread, pleeeeeaase. Bitcoin? Is this a practical working example of socialism? - peer to peer technology. How Bitcoin Works


In what way? Currency gains worth due to economic transactions. Socialism is based on forced economic transactions, while capitalism is based on voluntary action. If anything, bitcoin is libertarian, because the worth of the currency is formed by voluntary cooperation.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

Capitalism


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

RubiksCubix said:


> In what way? Currency gains worth due to economic transactions. Socialism is based on forced economic transactions, while capitalism is based on voluntary action. If anything, bitcoin is libertarian, because the worth of the currency is formed by voluntary cooperation.


Voluntary cooperation is at the heart of socialism in the sense of eliminating centralized control (private) even though this often ends up with centralized (government) control. The one basic defining tenant of socialism is ownership to the means of production to be not private - but public. This always seemed like nonsense to me because somebody has to be the one to make hard choices and be willing to be accountable and take risk. When anything becomes everybody's responsibility? - how stupid is that? -People just cover their ass and hide in the group.

However, in some ways, technology might be making socialist ideals, a functional choice. Yes I understand Bitcoin is a for-profit company, but it is designed to run parallel to any and all government structures. The idea of a universal barter system where, even though participants don't own Bitcoin profits, they can have ownership of how Bitcoin operates in a more direct way than hoping to make a dent in long-tem Bitcoin profitability.

@RubiksCubix you are right about this leaning more libertarian than anything, if you put a label on it. And technically people control economic transactions in capitalism. I'm just saying in some ways technology, for a long time, was adding to centralized (corporate) control. The tide has turned, we are seeing technology add to the feasibility of DEcentralized control.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

Mixed economy.

When everybody has enough NECESSITIES to survive (socialism), then it becomes moral for some people to have thousands of times the LUXURIES of other people (capitalism).


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> Mixed economy.
> 
> When everybody has enough NECESSITIES to survive (socialism), then it becomes moral for some people to have thousands of times the LUXURIES of other people (capitalism).


Same here. Necessities must be guaranteed. Also, without guaranteed necessities, all the talk about voluntary transactions is a mockery.

Also, the current recruitment process with impressions and bullshitting and other degeneracy is disgusting and amoral.


----------



## Littleleicesterfox (Mar 9, 2015)

I have strong socialist tendencies but I am also aware of the limitations of the socialist model. I look around the world and the societies that appear to work well i.e. rate high on happiness, stability and low on areas such as crime and teenaged pregnancies seem to be broadly, but not exclusively, based on a socialist welfare model with a small gap between rich and poor and less discrimination in any form. The countries I have in mind are, of course, the Scandinavian model and the viking boom has meant that these countries have recovered more quickly from the global recession we have seen recently. I think that they, as countries, would be rather offended by the suggestion they need the rest of the world doing their work for them 

As mentioned, they use a socialist welfare model and I believe very strongly that necessities such as education, basic utilities and healthcare such be a/ free at the point of use and b/ run without profit. However, their policies are a blend of left and right wing policies and this 'pick and mix' approach to good social policy making is the key to the success I believe. I am not saying for a moment they don't have problems, just they seem to have a better handle of them than most of the rest of the world.


----------



## peter pettishrooms (Apr 20, 2015)

Socialism. I support the working class, where my mother falls under. My immigrant mother, like a lot of people in my community, works hard for very little even when she's plagued with health issues. Once I get a good-paying job, I'm giving back to her and others who need assistance. I don't see myself living a luxurious lifestyle if I had the money anyway.


----------



## theWRAITH (Jun 3, 2015)

Socialism is what would chronologically come after capitalism. Karl Marx predicted how capitalism would drain the poor and create a 1% elite. He predicted it's influence on politics and how democracy would become an illusion, since politicians are funded by wealthy people who want more and more. He predicted if nothing else, the endless pursuit of seeking a lower profit return would be the self destructive fate of the free market. It's the things that haven't happened yet that he predicted that are even scarier, like exhausting the world of productive resources. Capitalism is a necessity to a finite amount of time before it needs to be abolished. It will create awesome technology by all the competing companies. It will lead to better medicine, but also worse medicine.


*Capitalism failed a long time ago*, it's in decline. See, the fundamentals of capitalism are set up to where if it's about to collapse it can temporarily fix itself. After so many bailouts it comes up with a few creative ways to sustain itself, then it will collapse. 

The idea of capitalism states a bold face lie, that it will fix the income equality gap. Yet it grows by the day and somehow this is still their main argument. Stating bold face lies easily provable not to coexist with reality. And people love it. 

Have fun getting trampled to death on black friday spending all of your bonus on 800 dollar phones your kid will hate in a year. Thanksgiving is like 5 days before the most shameful consumerism event in all of humanity. Celebrated by the same people. If I die in this country I have failed myself and my dreams.


***** edit. if this offended anyone i'm sorry. like i said capitalism IS essential until a certain point. My type accidentally offends a lot.


----------



## watbrah (Jun 4, 2015)

capitalism idk wot it means but lels


----------



## TimeIsExpensive (Dec 22, 2014)

Anarcho-capitalism. It seems to be an oxymoron for many, but the idea of having individual sovereignty, open markets, private property and the elimination of the state are a feast for my eyes for quite some time.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Simpson17866 said:


> Mixed economy.
> 
> When everybody has enough NECESSITIES to survive (socialism), then it becomes moral for some people to have thousands of times the LUXURIES of other people (capitalism).


But we do have safety nets. How far should we go to remove individual choice if we force people to take advantage of the right programs to build their life? I don't think even the staunch capitalist today, wants to remove any and all social programs. 

The other day an acquaintance of mine wanted to make a socialist proof issue out of food labels. Nobody selling packaged food product today is trying to change laws about food labels, to make it so they don't tell you what they put in your food. The point of free markets is to reward those of us who choose to risk, and learn, to create value for the world to vote on - with purchasing what we create. As markets become global vs your neighborhood butcher, or the furniture manufacturer whose products are demonstrated, and whose factory owner's name is known in your home town - things get complex; so of course laws that encourage transparency are needed.

But guess what, free markets made FaceBook exist, and created the competition for similar "products", so the same principal of markets regulating themselves is also still in play, creating feasibility of more transparency and accountability.

Net neutrality now, is a new category. The ownership of the means of production - means a whole different thing today than in the industrial age. If when using the term capitalism, a person means free markets, then the person saying capitalism has failed just has no clue what they are saying - just having emotional reactions to things they don't understand.


----------



## Lelu (Jun 1, 2015)

Socio-capitalism. 

Capitalism gives the most incentives to work and take risks leading to very powerful and large economies, however, everything cannot be a business and money cannot dictate everything. We should prioritize equal opportunity in the areas that need it the most and get money the hell out of it. I say this mainly on the topic of education. Children are our future? Then why do we exhaust, extort, and do so little to make what they're doing actually feel important? It's a business, and that needs to change.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> The other day an acquaintance of mine wanted to make a socialist proof issue out of food labels. Nobody selling packaged food product today is trying to change laws about food labels, to make it so they don't tell you what they put in your food. The point of free markets is to reward those of us who choose to risk, and learn, to create value for the world to vote on - with purchasing what we create. As markets become global vs your neighborhood butcher, or the furniture manufacturer whose products are demonstrated, and whose factory owner's name is known in your home town - things get complex; so of course laws that encourage transparency are needed.


The more information available, the better the markets will operate. Food labels tell you ingredients and the nutrition of the food and allow you to make better decisions. When information is open and freely available, markets operate better.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I think socialism is basically a giant ant society where nobody has any individual worth. It's really the same as what we already have in that we are all useless slaves.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

Agelastos said:


> That was communism, a form of socialism. Socialism predates Marx and Engels. It goes back to the French revolution. The term 'socialism' was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of what Marx and Engels would later call "utopian socialism".
> Also, I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about socialist economics.


Actually, it was Thomas More's book _Utopia_ that was the foundation of utopian socialism, and thus, paved the way for the development of Marxist philosophy. But, yes, you are correct in saying that socialism predates Marx and Engels.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

PowerShell said:


> The more information available, the better the markets will operate. Food labels tell you ingredients and the nutrition of the food and allow you to make better decisions. When information is open and freely available, markets operate better.


Exactly. this to me is not government interfering with business, just adjusting for how spread out buyers and sellers are from each other in today's markets. Not like you could go into the cereal maker plant and ask questions - just wouldn't be practical.

Now, outlawing the sale of big-gulps or slurpies because some people are fat - that is another story.


----------



## theWRAITH (Jun 3, 2015)

Old Intern said:


> Net neutrality now, is a new category. The ownership of the means of production - means a whole different thing today than in the industrial age. If when using the term capitalism, a person means free markets, then the person saying capitalism has failed just has no clue what they are saying - just having emotional reactions to things they don't understand.


Yes capitalism has done great things, you are right about that and I think it was needed. But it should only go so far IMO. 

The reason I said capitalism has failed because it has failed the working class. Companies laying off 10's of thousands of people at a time for a cheaper way out, like outsourcing or replacing them with drawn out plans. Corporations are for self interest, so their invasion of politics and political funding is morally wrong. 

Okay, then you got your super corporations destroying competition, and then merging with remaining competition. Places like wallmart destroying mains treet by putting one in every medium sized city in America. You'll see 3 registers open at a time because that's less pay. Most of walmarts employees make about 25 thousand annually. 68$ a day on average, and wal mart makes roughly 91 million dollars a day. 476 billion annually, 16b net profit. 

You could say ; "they don't earn it" or "get a better job". minimum wage used to be based on what is enough to 'live' off of, 7.25 an hour isn't enough to live most places. I guess the upside is most wal mart workers qualify for food stamps.Let's hope they don't live in a state that republicans just made it illegal for them to buy lobster and 40 other types of food and make them get drug tested for being poor. 

Multinational companies are depleting earth of natural resources. The coal industry is terrible for the environment, and could even be changing the climate. But they will do whatever to stay in power and we can't stop them, it's capitalism. 80 thousand people die a year in the coal industry, about 30 thousand are American. Letting the government control the energy/electricity would definitely result in nuclear power. Saving about three quarters of a million American lives over a span of 10 years. 


So even if true socialism isn't the answer, something like could help close the income gap and poverty levels. AT LEAST keep super pacs out and corporate funding out of politics !! And socialism supposed to make everyone more equal but I doubt it will take away your individualism though. Lool! So my posts might sound emotional but its probably somewhat because I grew up in poverty and we never were government assisted unless women shelters are government funded. I don't mean to sound condescending. I enjoy discussing stuff. 












some crazy facts I found about walmart family;

the biggest winners of capitalism (the waltons) are also the greediest. less than half of 1% of their wealth has ever been donated to society. In comparison to bill gates alone giving 33% of his..... 6 Waltons combined net worth is greater than 40% of american net combined net worth's.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

theWRAITH said:


> Yes capitalism has done great things, you are right about that and I think it was needed. But it should only go so far IMO.
> 
> The reason I said capitalism has failed because it has failed the working class. Companies laying off 10's of thousands of people at a time for a cheaper way out, like outsourcing or replacing them with drawn out plans. Corporations are for self interest, so their invasion of politics and political funding is morally wrong.
> 
> ...


Well. there is a logic to the idea that free markets stop working as the means of organizing resources - when products have no more meaningful differentiation, and there are no more "better mouse traps to build". This fits with the perceived problem
that maybe capitalism has reached its zenith, and going forward, societies will have to do something else.

It seems to me that people who hate capitalism hate it because they believe the only way a capitalist makes money is they screw, manipulate, or steal from someone. People who think this way must be people who have no imagination? As someone who has worked with small, local business owners for about 20 years - I have seen first hand, many people make money in a free society - because they figure out how to build a better mousetrap, because they have imagination and they take risks.

People with no imagination believe business is price period, or that something is inherently evil or unworthy about the person who thinks about price and value in new ways? Of course unscrupulous PEOPLE exist, but it is not evil to know the numbers have to add up. "The numbers have to add up", isn't capitalism, its just life. Profit is not evil in itself. At the core of profit is the simple idea that it's not wise to run yourself out to the edge with no reserves and you need to plan for a buffer. This goes for time, relationships, or anything else, it's just life.

Walmart is an infrastructure of efficiency that somebody built, and if society didn't value getting the lowest price, Walmart would have to adapt how they choose to create value.

However, if we have reached the end of new ways to create value, then screwing people over does become the game. For now, I believe the world is in an adjustment period because we can't define value the same way we did in the industrial age. The United States, including the individuals of the (past, or would be) middle class, have to figure out a replacement for the high paying factory jobs of yesteryear. Science and technology, and "social science?" is having exponential growth but society hasn't caught up with it yet, in terms of job creation.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> *But we do have safety nets. How far should we go to remove individual choice if we force people to take advantage of the right programs to build their life? I don't think even the staunch capitalist today, wants to remove any and all social programs. *
> 
> The other day an acquaintance of mine wanted to make a socialist proof issue out of food labels. Nobody selling packaged food product today is trying to change laws about food labels, to make it so they don't tell you what they put in your food. The point of free markets is to reward those of us who choose to risk, and learn, to create value for the world to vote on - with purchasing what we create. As markets become global vs your neighborhood butcher, or the furniture manufacturer whose products are demonstrated, and whose factory owner's name is known in your home town - things get complex; so of course laws that encourage transparency are needed.
> 
> ...


Oh trust me, I've met them.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Well. there is a logic to the idea that free markets stop working as the means of organizing resources - when products have no more meaningful differentiation, and there are no more "better mouse traps to build". This fits with the perceived problem
> that maybe capitalism has reached its zenith, and going forward, societies will have to do something else.
> 
> It seems to me that people who hate capitalism hate it because they believe the only way a capitalist makes money is they screw, manipulate, or steal from someone. People who think this way must be people who have no imagination? As someone who has worked with small, local business owners for about 20 years - I have seen first hand, many people make money in a free society - because they figure out how to build a better mousetrap, because they have imagination and they take risks.
> ...


I think it's because there is always that one greedy person that comes in and screws everyone else over----a flaw in human nature, it seems.

How can you stop human greed? it's always looking and waiting for it's opportunity to arise.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@theWRAITH I have one other aside comment about minimum wage. I think it can be shown that minimum wage is proportionately low compared to other time periods. I don't agree that the definition of minimum wage can be gauged by what is a living wage though.

I was just thinking about this because of a video (YouTube subscription). The kid made a good argument about the cost of a one bedroom apartment in all 50 states, and what the corresponding minimum wage was. The problem with this - who is living in the unaffordable apartments? If a large number of people live on minimum wage, a market is created for low cost housing - somebody would've figured this out and made it happen. You know why this doesn't happen? Because of government subsidized housing? - Maybe.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

GhostShadow said:


> I think it's because there is always that one greedy person that comes in and screws everyone else over----a flaw in human nature, it seems.
> 
> How can you stop human greed? it's always looking and waiting for it's opportunity to arise.


You don't stop it but you can choose to not support it with your own purchasing choices!
Did you see Walmart recent advertising, about them increasing employee pay? What people might not think about though, is that Walmart is entering a new market in competition with Amazon. This means Walmart has two different levels of value creation. Walmart knows people can shop on line, so this means they have to up their game about the customer experience at stores.

What will happen is that Walmart will get fussier about who they hire.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> You don't stop it but you can choose to not support it with your own purchasing choices!
> Did you see Walmart recent advertising, about them increasing employee pay? What people might not think about though, is that Walmart is entering a new market in competition with Amazon. This means Walmart has two different levels of value creation. Walmart knows people can shop on line, so this means they have to up their game about the customer experience at stores.
> 
> What will happen is that Walmart will get fussier about who they hire.


Well, why wasn't it stopped in the first place?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

GhostShadow said:


> Well, why wasn't it stopped in the first place?


Because of all those greedy customers who don't GO to Wallmart to GET great customer service!

So you didn't get my point. In the past, if you didn't like the reputation of Wallmart but you need to watch your pennies, one option was to go to Costco - the anti-Walmart.

That Costco serves business owners who need to buy bulk supplies, is not a conspiracy against poor people. Bulk buying and customer loyalty pays (benefits to) Costco to have higher standards for hiring and keeping employees that mold to a particular company standard.

Walmart is rewarded for having lowest price. If you buy from them, you pay for their ability to negotiate the lowest price, including the lowest price on labor - Duh. BUT, public opinion and new technology is changing what people are willing to pay for or what they want at all - from Walmart.

Sooo none of this is exactly greed, it is about markets. Walmart is no more greedy than the customer who shops there. You can make the case that poor people need those low prices - sure. But if by those same rules, if they need more money to live, they have to improve their desirability in the customer service market so they can work somewhere else, or look for a different market where they have more to offer. They want the prices, while scorning the methods.


----------



## Desolan (Nov 14, 2011)

You may in theory be able to make it a dual system.
Capitalism Vs a Worker/Producer Cooperative network

My idealized system of socialism is having an interdependent network of worker-owned industries rather than using expanded government and unions to guide society. Of course government would still have a place in this to ensure regulations


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

Well I am a big fan of surrealism and emotionalism! They express meee


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Desolan said:


> You may in theory be able to make it a dual system.
> Capitalism Vs a Worker/Producer Cooperative network
> 
> My idealized system of socialism is having an interdependent network of worker-owned industries rather than using expanded government and unions to guide society. Of course government would still have a place in this to ensure regulations


We have worker owned industries - called self employment, and freelancers. When I hear this, (social ownership of production) what I think of is a bunch of my relatives who worked for an office furniture manufacturer back in the day. Thing is, they worked for the factory - BECAUSE they wouldn't want to have to do what it takes to build a business system. They liked doing what they were told and bitching about the people in charge.


----------



## theWRAITH (Jun 3, 2015)

Well I don't really hate capitalism. I actually agree with it, like I said- to a point. I also probably have an imagination, my argument is 'the bigger picture'. I guess I can't prove that now is the time for socialism, it may not be.. But I mean at some point it will be. 

If things are getting ugly, couldn't one imagine that it might get kinda uglier? you know, as in terrible.

You're not really proving anything, but you make good arguments and perspective, which is cool. But can you give statistics to corroborate all the points you've made? are my statistics wrong? Also how many lives will it save? 

If you say the richest company in the world isn't greedy, even though they've only donated 0.4 of their net worth, then what you said is automatically opinion.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

theWRAITH said:


> Well I don't really hate capitalism. I actually agree with it, like I said- to a point. I also probably have an imagination, my argument is 'the bigger picture'. I guess I can't prove that now is the time for socialism, it may not be.. But I mean at some point it will be.
> 
> If things are getting ugly, couldn't one imagine that it might get kinda uglier? you know, as in terrible.
> 
> ...


Greedy or not, isn't the point. You can't legislate how people feel; companies are made of people. Any and all laws must be created with the capacity to be applied in an even handed way. As far as what lawyers are hired, you can only go so far with that. We have anti-trust laws to deal with monopoly. We have tools for the public to communicate with each other. Nobody has a gun to your head to purchase products from companies you morally object to. Companies without customers have to adapt, with policies the public finds more earth friendly and whatever else.

Sure, tax reform is long overdue, we do use tax incentives for public good, I mean we can, but demonizing the one percent is sexier than talking about tax laws.

What statistics exactly, are you referring to in the above post?


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> You can't legislate how people feel


They sure as hell try and it continues to fail over and over and over again.


----------



## Delicious Speculation (May 17, 2015)

Old Intern said:


> demonizing the one percent is sexier than talking about tax laws.


You've summed up my gripe with political slacktivists and social media. 

Capitalism works when everyone has what they need first, but getting to that point takes a lot of work that most people aren't willing to do. Socialism has a lot of potential, but there are many hoops to jump through before it could be implemented, and the biggest ones involve fear. 

Disclaimer: I'm a democratic socialist.


----------



## SpectrumOfThought (Mar 29, 2013)

Capitalism.


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

I would rather win it all or lose it all. Hit or miss. I think that how people should play the game of life. So capitalism


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

KevinInHeaven said:


> I would rather win it all or lose it all. Hit or miss. I think that how people should play the game of life. So capitalism


 When you already have it all, it's extremely easy to say that others should be "allowed" to lose it all.


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> When you already have it all, it's extremely easy to say that others should be "allowed" to lose it all.


What I meant I would rather be poor or rich not in the middle. I dont know middle seems stressed, dont live simple lives nor lavish lives. That life style seems boring. A poor lifestyle for me is somehow has more edge to it. You dont really have anything to lose. If you can afford food then cool. I feel middle class is like walking on a rope, too much responsibility and you may tip over... just my point of view



Just like in a test. I would rather have a full score or a strangely low score. If you lose it all people will question what happened. But when you are just low enough you just look like you tried hard and then failed. To me less is more. If you can't do something do it really bad so people wont say he tried so hard but failed, they will say he didn't give his best.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

A girl came in to buy a knife as a 'gift for mommy'. She stabbed her mom, and now liberals are blaming me.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

"This city still reeks with the stench of the Stormcloaks. Makes me sick to my stomach."


----------



## zzbrandon (Jun 9, 2015)

Capitalism for sure. There are winners and failures in life and I would rather have the opportunity to take the risk and win or die trying then everyone being the same. America is not truly capitalistic in its nature, but it is still a country where you can go from rich to poor in an instant or poor to rich in an instant and other countries that are structured differences are not like that at all. It makes life interesting and full of possibilities. Socialism limits possibilities therefore Capitalism.


----------



## Red_Valor (Jun 12, 2015)

Look around and you shall see; socialism will eventually win.


----------



## Arising Legend (Jan 25, 2015)

Dream Eater said:


> I personally like Capitalism. Socialism seems a bit too boring to me. Capitalism is brutal, a quality that I like about it. It strives to create a better world. Only the strongest have a right to survive. So yeah, if you want a near-'perfect' world --> Capitalism. If you want community --> Socialism. But then again your perception of 'perfect' might be completely different compared to mine.


Your perfect totalitarian world is coming regardless.


----------



## Arising Legend (Jan 25, 2015)

zzbrandon said:


> Capitalism for sure. There are winners and failures in life and I would rather have the opportunity to take the risk and win or die trying then everyone being the same. America is not truly capitalistic in its nature, but it is still a country where you can go from rich to poor in an instant or poor to rich in an instant and other countries that are structured differences are not like that at all. It makes life interesting and full of possibilities. Socialism limits possibilities therefore Capitalism.


Socialism increases possibilities. By adding systems and means to expand possibilities. It also favors risk by adding a failsafe ''wellfare''.
Your plutocracy doesn't do shit, unless you think stigmatizing powers is ''full of possibilities'' and completely disregarding 99,987% of people


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Arising Legend said:


> Socialism increases possibilities. By adding systems and means to expand possibilities. It also favors risk by adding a failsafe ''wellfare''.


Then why isn't Europe a mecca for high tech innovation? You ever think the fear of ground crashing failure might drive people to work harder? You ever think no being as constrained in an environment and allowed to make choices because you keep more of your money might motivate people to do more?


----------



## Red_Valor (Jun 12, 2015)

Welfare and socialism are not the same thing. Welfare is something the wealthy few add to a system, so that the masses won't actually start demanding real socialism.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Red_Valor said:


> Welfare and socialism are not the same thing. Welfare is something the wealthy few add to a system, so that the masses won't actually start demanding real socialism.


How is it not socialism? The government is providing a good or service that would have otherwise had to be obtained on the free market.


----------



## Red_Valor (Jun 12, 2015)

It is leaning towards it. But socialism by definition, is an economy, where the means of productions is distributed between the workers. In other words, the work is socialized. 

Heck, the first welfare system, if I am not mistaken, was created by the conservative Otto Von Bismarck, to silence the german socialist party of the 19th century.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Red_Valor said:


> It is leaning towards it. But socialism by definition, is an economy, where the means of productions is distributed between the workers. In other words, the work is socialized.


They are still taking money from the private sector and then distributing it via a government agency.



> Heck, the first welfare system, if I am not mistaken, was created by the conservative Otto Von Bismarck, to silence the german socialist party of the 19th century.


And Obamacare was originally written by the Heritage Foundation as a rebuttal to "Hillarycare" and then first signed into law in Massachusetts by then governor, Mitt Romney.


----------



## Red_Valor (Jun 12, 2015)

PowerShell said:


> They are still taking money from the private sector and then distributing it via a government agency.


As I said, it is leaning towards it, but it isn't socialism in its complete form. The OP offers a simple choice between capitalism or socialism. 

To me it sounds like it is being held up like two extremes; 

capitalism - free market, no welfare, etc. 

and

socialism; the people control the means of productions, protectionist policies.

Most countries have systems that are based on combinations of different ideologies.

The Scandinavian countries have huge welfare sectors, but the means of productions are still controlled by individuals. From your viewpoint, these countries would have socialism? But nothing is further from the truth. Just as a complete liberal system have never existed, a complete socialist system have yet to come.


----------



## Arising Legend (Jan 25, 2015)

PowerShell said:


> Then why isn't Europe a mecca for high tech innovation? You ever think the fear of ground crashing failure might drive people to work harder? You ever think no being as constrained in an environment and allowed to make choices because you keep more of your money might motivate people to do more?


The slight increase in taxation is a small motivation. People can succeed with passion not because they want to stomp everyone with their wealth in a paradigm where they are at biological war with the rest of the civilization and wish their families to win Darwinism. People motivated by abstract wealth are parasitic and unimportant.

Almost all governments run on corrupt systems, while some are more competent compared to the system they run on (less then 5).
Europe is not a mecca high innovation not because of little insignificance like socialism. But because it runs on a sucking monetary and financial system that unlike America, doesn't run on petro-dollar colonies. So Europes situation doesn't talk precisely about the insignificant factor(of this thread) in the room with the elephants.

I'm having an abstract example here, because there is almost no existence of efficient capitalism I know of.
Maybe norwegia or Iceland and nordic countries are OK exemples of socialism.


----------



## Crni Djuro (Jun 16, 2015)

wait...
why are you even starting from a standpoint that welfare is a good thing
I always considered it as a result of majority of other personality types throwing away ancien regime (ran by NTs) in modern age

so yeah, I must say neither -
feudalism has for now proven by far the best system:

-it doesn't waste endless funds earned by hard-working model people on supporting freeloaders like socialism does
-capitalism can be considered valid in it's radical form to some degree, but it's military policies and general softness make it unsustainable in front of barbarian (yes, I'm using the term barbarian for less developed civilizations) invasions from the east (natal rate!)

not to say it's by far the most tested and most stable one


----------



## Reynir (Apr 3, 2015)

Neither are great. 
They both are just ways to foresee in conditions that keep the masses occupied. 
If I would have to pick, it would be socialism though, luckily I don't have to.

Above I read about europe not being high innovative ? 
I'd say, read some more about the specific countries and try forming a more accurate opinion. Europe has been highly innovative and still is, on many topics.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Reynir said:


> Neither are great.
> They both are just ways to foresee in conditions that keep the masses occupied.
> If I would have to pick, it would be socialism though, luckily I don't have to.
> 
> ...


Are you speaking of things happening in Sweden or Denmark? Social policies across certain services of course won't interfere with markets of other market segments. I mean state care of young and elderly doesn't seem to hurt them right now.

We do need to stop making socialism or capitalism into boogey-man words. The ownership of the means of production made no sense as far as I could see, when we were talking about the industrial age. Sooooo many people like the idea of running things but won't do the math, or put themselves on the line to build something. Trouble is what if the means of production is the internet? 

We have a sharing economy, in the post information age. But what is free isn't intended as a free gift either. People don't need money motivation to do art, but at some point monetizing is still the method to organize resources. At some level that is human. People want to do good for others, but whatever doesn't get measured into profit and loss *will* get neglected, or at best become a mess, organized on the whim of somebody with political power in the moment.


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

Being the way I am and knowing what I know (don't ask), if we were in a world of the purely rational, I'd say capitalism in a heartbeat. But, the thing is, the markets, nor its participants are rational and that's why we have cronyism. The fact is, in order to keep the majority from rioting, certain things need to be done. Certain basic needs must be met to keep people decently happy and subdued. The populace also needs to be rebrainwashed to a more productive manner.

The whole system needs an overhaul: regulations need to be cut, money needs to be redesigned, the markets need to be fixed, social programs must be sustainable, et cetera. Give me four decades and dictatorial powers and I could probably make it things better.


----------



## Sefii (Jun 17, 2015)

Islamic socialism.

Free market, no interest, less drama more opportunity.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Sefii said:


> Islamic socialism.
> 
> Free market, no interest, less drama more opportunity.


Less Drama? Are we talking about an interpretation compatible with modern society? I know it exists, customers, people living in Michigan, with call to prayer on their computers and the women are not wearing Burkas or stoned for adultery.

But doesn't Islam need to go through a type of reformation, and not feel threatened by groups like ISIS, before they would have international viability?


----------



## Sefii (Jun 17, 2015)

Old Intern said:


> Less Drama? Are we talking about an interpretation compatible with modern society? I know it exists, customers, people living in Michigan, with call to prayer on their computers and the women are not wearing Burkas or stoned for adultery.
> 
> But doesn't Islam need to go through a type of reformation, and not feel threatened by groups like ISIS, before they would have international viability?


I would answer that question, hear it out if you_ 'really' _want to clear up your misconceptions.

Islam is a solution, a whole structure, *a code of life*.
ISIL or Daesh doesn't depict Islam, we all are aware of it, just like Iraq war, KKK and Israel doesn't speak for any section or community. 
So why the reformation? What is their to reform anyway ?
Burkas, prayers or whatever isn't a wall standing in the way of progressive society.
In fact its the other way around.

Ever heard about the spiritual side of Islam? Yup, its more compatible with Science than you can ever imagine.
Moreover, Islam as a whole accordant with Science, from the design of prayers to system for society and much more.
Stoning women for adultery? We both know there is some sort of assertion here, no point to dig in.

With Islamic socialism , one doesn't have to suffer the burden of unjustified prices and the power of finance remains stable for both customer and seller.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Sefii I'm aware that ISIS doesn't represent many sincere Muslims, or ones I am acquainted with personally here in the US., and I assume many other parts of the world. But doesn't the existence of such a group or groups pose a threat to outspoken Muslim organizations who clearly don't hold the same interpretations. For a group like ISIS, the non-compliant (by their interpretation) Muslim, is not Muslim but worse than the infidel, and therefore possibly a prime target.


----------



## Sefii (Jun 17, 2015)

Old Intern said:


> @Sefii I'm aware that ISIS doesn't represent many sincere Muslims, or ones I am acquainted with personally here in the US., and I assume many other parts of the world. But doesn't the existence of such a group or groups pose a threat to outspoken Muslim organizations who clearly don't hold the same interpretations. For a group like ISIS, the non-compliant (by their interpretation) Muslim, is not Muslim but worse than the infidel, and therefore possibly a prime target.


See, according to your logic, every criminal is a threat to Muslims.
People who are in ISIL/Daesh are humans too, does that make them any less of a threat ? No.
ISIL or any other group get attention, once they take the name of something effective, something that people get attracted to. Then we have media, who gives them hype and other agents always working/controlling them. That's how they get recognition. Is ISIL more of a threat than Israel, Bashar Al Asad, nuclear weapons or drones? or the occupational forces in Kashmir or the Buddhist targeting Rohingyas ? No, if anything they are much equal and similar in many ways. 
However,there is one threat far more lethal, Capitalism. Governments also take advantage of it
Alas, who gets the more attention? ISIL, why ?

Coming back to the topic, if we look into it, Islam does provide solutions for the problems stated above, you can disagree but that's just my opinion and something that this world have witness on many occasions.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Sefii said:


> Islamic socialism.
> 
> Free market, no interest, less drama more opportunity.


You do realize instead of interest they just charge "fees?"


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Sefii said:


> See, according to your logic, every criminal is a threat to Muslims.
> People who are in ISIL/Daesh are humans too, does that make them any less of a threat ? No.
> ISIL or any other group get attention, once they take the name of something effective, something that people get attracted to. Then we have media, who gives them hype and other agents always working/controlling them. That's how they get recognition. Is ISIL more of a threat than Israel, Bashar Al Asad, nuclear weapons or drones? or the occupational forces in Kashmir or the Buddhist targeting Rohingyas ? No, if anything they are much equal and similar in many ways.
> However,there is one threat far more lethal, Capitalism. Governments also take advantage of it
> ...


This general topic took my interest because early on, I said to a friend that ISIS or ISIL, has a marketing appeal and perfect timing. This person blew off my comment but more kept happening, more press coverage. As long as Muslims adhere to strict interpretation of Sharia, then of course ISIL is more friend than enemy. But I don't think the modern world will put up with that strict interpretation (other than for isolated self contained states), and ISIL would not accept anything less - can the two exist together? Would ISIL stay within their sect or territory while a powerful moderate Islam seemed to thrive elsewhere?

One Muslim acquaintance of mine sold me my first cell phone and I don't think he is anti-capitalist at all.


----------



## Sefii (Jun 17, 2015)

PowerShell said:


> You do realize instead of interest they just charge "fees?"


In Capitalism ? Of course they charge fees.
Islamic socialism? No they don't charge other than what is the price, otherwise it is considered as interest.


----------

