Because everyone complaining about the governments of the western world, usually right-wing or conservative pundits (and many posters here, I may add) lay the charge that our governments are "socialist". Well, then I guess the Soviets won? No, they didn't and this really irks me so I want to make this clear: If someone defends Communism (usually a university student) by saying that what the Soviets practiced was not "true communism", what would be your reaction? You would scoff and dismiss that person as an unrealistic simpleton that doesn't realise that communism is a process that falls into dictatorship. There is no worker's utopia at the end of the road, quit fooling yourself. That is what reality has taught us across all the communist countries of the world. But that person would answer "but we can do it right if we try it again!". And you would scoff even louder and walk away. Hasn't this **** learnt anything? Of course they haven't - they're stuck in a la-di-da land full of pretty but ultimately useless theories. They need a REALITY CHECK (and probably a job). Tell me I'm wrong - of course I'm not. Now, all of a sudden, what we have today is a system that is not "true capitalism" but some kind of pseudo- governmental monetary management. "Keynesianism" is the popular buzzword (although most people don't even understand Keynes' theory). But we don't scoff at these people because the story we buy is that capitalism has been "hijacked" by the super-rich and powerful. But wasn't communism also "hijacked" by dictators? Of course it was, and that is the reality of communism. Therefore, the reality of capitalism is that it will be hijacked by the rich and powerful. people who have power, want more and will do anything to protect the privileged position they enjoy. This is exactly capitalism, people. This is the REALITY CHECK. Now the reaction to this is "we need to eliminate the fraudsters and go back to a paradise free market of demand and supply and honest money". How is this not a la-di-da land full of pretty but ultimately useless theories? Such a paradise never existed. In the "good old days:, there was still slavery, child labour, no consumer protection laws, robber barons and bank runs very other Wednesday. I have news for you unrealistic dreamers - WE WILL NEVER GO BACK, because you can't go to a place that never ever existed. And let's say we did - let's say we could somehow magically make our economic system mirror 1840s USA - wouldn't that just mean that 150 years later people would be dealing with the same issues we have now? The mega-rich gaming the system? Probably not, because if we tried it second time around, we'd be doing it with no oil and most of our mineral wealth will already be dug out and sold to others for peanuts, never to come back. We would have issues of sustainability. So what do we need to do? We need to find another way out. In point form, this is what I believe our future society needs to have: * banks as utilities * no stock market, therefore we need an alternate financing model for productive enterprise (coming back to banks as utilities). * a system without capitalists, but one that encourages and rewards entrepreneurs (capitalists sit on their ass and expect fat returns on their money, entrepreneurs go out and make productive things happen). No more speculation - if you want to get rich, you need to work hard and earn it or have a good idea. No more gambling. * a free floating price mechanism - no more market manipulation or tinkering with supply and demand. Interest rates are free floating, not decided by some faceless mega-bankers. * a system that emphasises efficiencies, environmental sustainability and full employment, rather than merely rate of profit and a growth model that couldn't care less if unemployment was at 10%. The economy serves the people - we don't serve the economy. * economic democracy - employees choose their managers because they are the best people for the job and can maximise efficiencies and profits for the employees. Every employee is a shareholder of the company they work for entitled to the profits they helped earn for the company. If we can choose our political leaders, we can choose the people who have an even greater impact on our lives - our bosses. Your yearly salary is calculated by how successful the business was and what your contribution was to making that profit. If the company goes bust, you are out of a job and should probably find a place that chooses its managers better. * go local - we need to bring agriculture, manufacturing and all service jobs back into the country. Get rid of the system that ships factory jobs to China for $2 an hour, forces us to put up with call centres in Mumbai or wastes litres of fuel to ship oranges here from the USA when we can grow it here ourselves (and better). * slash taxes - government is bloated and needs to be trimmed down to the basics of law and infrastructure. What is left of government needs to have heavy citizen involvement with expert technical input free of political bias so the best decisions are made. * abolish political parties who are just Coke and Pepsi anyway. All politicians are independents. Slash the civil service bureaucrats. Many of the government jobs currently done are done by citizens on a part time or voluntary basis. * full accountability for where tax money goes - I want to know that my money bought exactly that desk in that public library or to pay that civil servant's wage for these weeks, not fall into some anonymous government slush fund to be wasted. * macro economic planning - democratic institutions that decide where tax money goes with an emphasis on long term planning for the health of the nation. No more pollies wasting tax dollars on white elephants or giving it away to voters at election campaigns. Why does the government have to take my money in taxes only to give it back to me as a "sweetener"? Here's an idea - LET ME KEEP WHAT I'VE EARNED. I think a lot about these issues and of course there is no such thing as a perfect society. There will always be problems like waste and corruption. But we can't go back to the "good old days" of capitalism and we need to avoid dictatorship, no matter what the form or name (fascism, communism etc etc). So there has to be a third way. We have a lot of problems and the solution cannot be to wind back the clock to an imaginary time that never existed or try to instigate a utopian system that has clearly failed every time it is attempted.
Oh one thing I didn't mention: * citizen (not government) social welfare - We are given rights of free enterprise and freedom from government oppression. But there can be no rights without responsibilities. And our responsibility is to civil service, like that practiced by the ancient Greeks. Society needs to care for the sick, poor, elderly and disabled. But the problem is not fixed by throwing money at it. All citizens will spend some time in a week performing civil service that they can choose. The poor are given skills to improve and find decent jobs, the sick and elderly are cared for by the people that live in their direct community, not by some overworked social worker that can't handle their case files. In other words, the community takes care of its own.
I just want the govt to stop telling me what is good or bad for me, and let ME f#@%ing decide and be responsible for myself! I don't need these nannys trying to dictate my every move.
Brilliant post Earthjade. I too am sick of people saying that an unregulated free market would solve all our problems, that the free market/pure capitalism will look after everyone etc. What a load of bullocks. Pure capitalism won't work for the masses. Anarchy seems to be another catch cry, get rid of all government and let the people decide what is best for themselves - yeah right, and I would be one of the first to buy a hunting bow and go bush to protect myself from all the crims/thugs/idiots roaming around killing and stealing, society would break down very quickly without structure. If you run for politics - you have my vote
Communism has a structural flaw that will always make it fail in my opinion. Communism has no place for entrepreneurs. In any society there are those who are bright, motivated and visionary. In our system the Steve Jobs's and Richard Branson's create marvels. In a communist society such people have nowhere to exercise their drive and brilliance other than crime or climbing the political ladder. Communism does not work for the same reason that the Euro zone does not work - Shacking the greek and German economies together is like tying a donkey to the back of a Greyhound bus. Shackling people who live to create skyscrapers, quantum memory and spaceplanes to people who live to sit on the porch drinking and playing cards is a recipe for dictatorship.
Absolutely correct. But the mistake is to believe you can make a flawless system in the first place. There is an interesting insight into this issue that comes, from all people, from a computer network analyst (security adviser). Basically, the system works for the majority, but you will always find people that will perform outside of the group's standards for personal gain. When people perform outside of the group's standards for the benefit of the group, this is a good thing because that's how the group develops and improves. this is a good thing that must be protected and encouraged. People must always have the capacity to question why things are done and how they can be done better. What we need to do is stop those that would corrupt or destroy a system for selfish gain. For the ones that try gaming the system, the only solution is vigilance. You will never be able to eliminate "gamers" in the same way you will never be able to eliminate computer viruses. What's that old saying about the price of liberty?
Communism never could work because communism itself is a higher state of thought. It exists in some utopian place. That it collapsed is no great revelation. Capitalism has floundered largely because of government interference: keeping interest rates artificially low via inept and incompetent central banks; propping up insolvent organizations such as TBTF banks via free money instead of allowing the free market to clear itself of bad, reckless and excessive debt. blowing up massive financial bubbles in stock and housing markets in order for spectacular but short-term financial and political gain (i.e. re-election purposes); engaging Washington lobbyists who proceed to persuade, via campaign contributions, that any form of regulation, no matter how big or small, will not be tolerated (as it inevitably means lower profits and thus lower bonuses for fat-cat corporatists [and neither should we CONFUSE some legitimate regulation, which protects savers, with a free market]). making promises politicians cannot keep, and funding those promises via ever greater borrowings (what do they care? When the proverbial hits the fan, most will be traipsing around on million dollar speaking engagements). ---------------------------------------------- We are in the pooh because GOVERNMENTS have bailed out corrupt organizations with taxpayer money and have spent stupendously more than they are willing or able to tax. It has been a cut and dried case of recklessly allowing fraudulent businesses to privatize profits whilst socializing losses. That is not capitalism. It has never been capitalism. Capitalism could work, and did work, until crooked politicians went to work for even more crooked corporatists. What we have now is fascism. Pure and simple. But it will ultimately collapse. "Fascism is actually the work of the synergistic effort of big government and big corporations working together to stifle the people. And that's what we have in America today." Aaron Russo
I stand for the individual. No one has any right to a moment of my life I do not give willingly, no matter who makes the claim. On looking through your proposals mate, you are all over the shop with free market and protectionist ideals clashing down the line. I would say that the current system we have are the result of a protectionist system. The complete lack of ingenuity, creativity and REAL growth (the organic growth of markets that are created from profit, not protectionism) are the foundations of what's screwed up in society. It's interesting that you'd propose you are sick of the purist model concepts when you've never experienced one. The fallacy of the arguement is that 'capitalism doesn't work' and yet, we've never seen a pure capitalist model in practise to even know. Better the devil you know perhaps? Some of your points regarding the dismantlement of protectionism, taxation and government control I am very much in favour of, but it would seem you are in favour of throwing out the baby with the bathwater on other concepts like free market models, profit motivations and the like. Our system is sick and dying because of what it is, because of the values it holds and because of the integrity it's debased. Your proposals amount to a feudal system with a socialist taint, with some nice idealist window dressing. Essentially, a more PG friendly version of the world we have today, but still retails some of the worst components that over time will simply undermine the system again. You cannot propose a model to forcibly control people EJ. Any model that proposes it, is destined to fail. Whilst humanity seeks solace and shelter among the flock, they never want to feel like they are trapped to it. We need to literally strip the system to the bone to remove the cancer that's killing it EJ. What you propose is a half way venture that takes the most appealing personal aspects of these systems you personally idealise and rolls them up into what you think would be a sustainable (and controllable) utopia. Again and again we never question the foundations of our society at all (assuming, because someone who claims they can talk to an invisible man in times past said it was the 'best' system, it's infallable?) and instead of starting over, we try and go back to that core (which is the problem in the first place) and alter a few settings and try again. Albert Einstein said quite simply that the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over again and expect different results & essentially, that's what we're proposing here. It's the core foundation of our society that's the problem here EJ. The typical scapegoats of capitalism, profit, selfishness and other 'evil' ideologies are driven by whome and with what agenda? Without turning this into a religious debate (although I'm not sure we can avoid the topic if we're going to properly address it) I would say that the problem of our system starts at the core foundation and the most disturbing aspect of your points of view were not to question the foundation, but to simply put a new spin on it and if history should have shown you anything, it's that it does not work. Until people are willing to face objective reality as their only absolute and go back to the foundations on ideology (without any taint or considerations other than the simple, fundamentals of who we are as a species) no system being devised will provide what you're looking for. The fact that the core of society is so vehemently opposed to even considering such drastic move (never leave the safety of the herd!) shows why we keep making the same mistakes over and over I think.
Sorry, but the sad reality is that this is exactly capitalism. When you have money, you have power - this is easy to understand. The mistake is thinking that "corporatists" and capitalists are somehow different when the fact is they are not. The government is the corporatists and does not represent the people. But this is how capitalism naturally evolves. How do you stop the mega rich from controlling government? Take away their money? Isn't that communism? What about stopping them from influencing politics? How do you do that? Money is power and everyone has a price? How many of us are incorruptible? This is against the reality of human nature. You know how people argue communism is impossible because no one wants to work while others sit around and do nothing? Then communist advocates unrealistically argue that people will work because it's the right thing to do for society (and then everybody laughs)? Well, capitalism is ultimately impossible because the people who get rich from the system ultimately buy power and government because everybody has a price. Then capitalist advocates will unrealistically argue that governments can be honest because it's the right thing to do for society (everybody laughs). Both cases are not in line with reality. People who argue what we have is not capitalism are in denial. Capitalism is three elements: 1) Wage labour 2) A free market 3) Private ownership of capital by capitalists Over time, the natural trend is for 3 to distort 2. This is not government's fault. Rather, government manipulation is just a symptom of the cause. Do you get it? Those who are mega-rich want to stay in power and the best way to do this is to control the free market. To control the free market you control the institution that makes the rules about how the market works - the government. So when you say this is the fault of the government in supporting the too big to fails, you actually have the argument BACKWARDS. The too big to fails have set up the government for themselves. This is a capitalist problem, not a government problem, per se. And then there are those that advocate no government. To those people, good luck with your fishing, hunting and barter trade. Humankind developed civil society because it needed to get **** done.
If everyone was an individual, there would be no coherent civil society. "No man is an island unto themselves" - some very old and common sense wisdom. Many great thinkers, including the father of free markets - Adam Smith - understood quickly the dead end that pure individualism presented. We combine together because we can do more together than apart. The thing about the Ayn Rand and Objectivist lot is that no one likes her for her philosophy. They like her because she cobbled together a core of "ethics" that gives dog-eat-dog capitalism a faux air of academic respectability. But I can sum up the Randian philosophy in one simple sentence: "I want rights without responsibility." In other words, you want to enjoy all the privileges that free enterprise offers but only want to contribute to maintaining the system when you feel like it - if you feel like it. This is just a clever disguised version of the guy expecting a free lunch. I know what you are saying: "But I do have responsibility - for myself!" That's nice, but try building a highway for yourself or researching a cure for cancer alone. We need to join together to get stuff done. All the rights that you fully enjoy are because they are acknowledged by others. You need others to enjoy your rights because only through others can you fully realise them. Let me put it simply - if you were the last person on Earth, the biggest pile of gold that you owned would be worth nothing. If you wrote a great book, no one would be there to acknowledge its greatness and it would be worthless. You are a great man or a good man only when others choose to recognise you as so. everybody is a great person in their own imagination - doesn't make it reality. We need others - this is a fact. But then there's the second retort "Yes, but any arrangement I make with others must be purely voluntary!" To this I reply with simple common sense: As long as people have all the rights of freedom and enterprise, why would they bother sacrificing their time to maintain it? Other people can do that. But of course if no one does anything to ensure the freedom protected and only want to enjoy its benefits, the system falls apart. Will everybody naturally choose to do the right thing? I guess Objectivists failed to account for this fundamental aspect of human nature. The problem with ideology is that it tends to dislike those who disagree with it. Ideology created the gulag. Ideology created notions of racial purity and the results that followed. I think we as a race have had enough of ideology. Me? I'm more for practical solutions to the problems we have to deal with today using any tool at my disposal, not some theoretical and ideological snake oil that seems to cause humanity nothing but problems and misery.
Are you saying that you only ever act for the good of others because the system or government tells you you must. To say that it is human nature is entirerly selfish is to ignor the fact that positive common goals are possible thru human nature. It is selfish of me to want to own what I produce withour having it stolen from me, but in this selfishness is also the relization that to take care of those in society that are WILLING to be helped to improve themselves, and in ding so society progresses. This shall never be acomlished by forcing individuals to surrender what they produce at the point of a gun under the guise that it is for the benifit of society and if we do not force producers to hand over that which they have produced they will hord it for themselves making everyone else suffer. Objectivisum may have counter arguments but try broadning the thought process to include evolutionary biology, such as the societal beifits of the 'Selfish Gene'.
The selfish gene argument has been around for centuries - go and Google "The Fable of the Bees". The problem with this argument is that in its worst manifestation, it thinks that if everyone looks after themselves, civil society runs itself. Like some great mathematical equation where the only problem is that we're just not being selfish enough! This is not to say that we do away with self-interest, because it is very, very necessary. However, a responsible adult understands that sometimes you take and sometimes you give. If a child doesn't want to clean his room because he "doesn't voluntarily feel like it", you kick his ass and get him to do it because it needs to be done. This is why rights must always be balanced by responsibilities. We enjoy our rights because civil society allows us to (you cannot meaningfully enjoy your rights alone - I argued that above). Therefore, we have a responsibility to serve civil society and sadly for the Objectivist free lunchers, some things should be obligations. Of course, if citizens do not agree with this, they should be free to leave that society if they so choose.
Yeah I did appreciate your post, but felt the historically realised dangers need to be weighed heavily when considering where things could go.
I know a number of people working in medical research and biotech who would jump at the chance to receive a basic salary and be left alone in a laboratory to keep finding cures for horrible diseases and building bionic limbs for accident victims. From what I remember reading about Jonathan Ive (the guy who actually designed the iPod), he likes being shut away in a studio while he's working too and Richard Branson, if you look at his career, generally doesn't actually do anything revolutionary - he just does something everyone else is doing but does it a little bit cheaper and with a lot more "cool". It would be a mistake to think that nothing revolutionary can happen under a communist system. Look at mankind's history of space exploration: apart from the moon landing virtually all the "firsts" (first satellite, first person in space, first spacewalk, first space station) were all achieved by the Soviet Union. It would also be a mistake to think this proves communism is a superior system for technological advancement.
I do agree that a financial system has to be in place for efficient progress to be made. However that progress must be natural and not a debt driven progression fueled by fiat money. Sound money provides a natural and progressive progression at a steady pace which the community can afford. Even though it may be considered to 'hinder' progression by some since it may not have enough funds in the bank as to say. However if you cant afford the progression should you progress? That is in it self its own question. That said, people have to come to realise the benefits of contributing to society themselves. They should not be forced into contributing. I also think that religion plays a big role in this. Pretty much all religions call upon people to reap upon the benefits of the after life by contributing/giving up what you for the benefit of others. If people grow up and their family is not 'religous/moral' and all they focus around is material object, what do you think they would do? That said, civilisations always reach a high point then start to degenerate becasue the people that had morals and built up the society are long dead and their great grandchildren dont have the same religous/moral foundation as their parents had.
For me, the rule of man is naturally imperfect because of the greed, anger and intolerance we all harbor toward others. You only have to watch 5 minutes of parliament to realise that these people are very far from perfect and instead of being the beacons of wisdom in our society, they are very often nothing more than the scum that has floated to the top. Any system that supports this kind of establishment is doomed to fail under its own weight of incompetence sooner or later, and this is what we are seeing at the moment IMO. Just as we have seen each example of communism fail. But where do you rate respect for personal property rights, Earthjade? I notice that you have hidden it deep in your last point on "macro economic planning", but I feel it is the key principle from which everything else flows and that a failure to respect the property rights of others is a total failure of morality. By extension, so too are immoral all those laws that would deprive or compel someone against their will to part with their property. To paint a picture, we could talk about such laws as weeds that need to be removed to have a productive garden. At the moment our garden is overgrown with weeds and they need to be cleared away to restore the garden to fruit bearing capacity. However, instead of being good farmers, politicians are totally negligent in their responsibilities toward the garden and instead of tending the plants are sowing more weeds. To extend the metaphor to cover your ideas of communities, we need to introduce permaculture into our economic garden.
