Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
What is better than Capitalism?
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 18 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

Re: "Natural capitalism"?
Sep 08, 2003, 23:02
If "property" (general sense) is owned by "everyone and at the same time no one" what does that mean?

If it's collective ownership how is that different than state ownership? I mean, who allocates the resources and controls the necessary buearocracy? You hold a national (international?) referendum on every single issue relating to the allocation of resources? I think not, that's an impossible scenario -- so who's in charge? Who makes the decisions?
MonkeyBoy
1008 posts

Re: "Natural capitalism"?
Sep 08, 2003, 23:30
Thats Common ownership by the way.

The people involved in obtaining that resource (together with the local community) can decide were to allocate resources by forming consenual decisions with regional, nationwide or international bodies.
MonkeyBoy
1008 posts

Re: What is better than Capitalism?
Sep 08, 2003, 23:35
Money doesn't have to be replaced in can be scrapped all together, production for profit can be replaced by production for needs. All access to goods can be free and involve no transaction.
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

A world without "money"
Sep 08, 2003, 23:39
Do you seriously think that would work?

Who decides what is a "need" and what is a "want"? How would producers decide how much and what to produce? How would distribution work in PRACTICAL terms?

Be specific please. Use examples, etc. Theoretical verbiage not acceptable. ;-)
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

"Common ownership"?
Sep 08, 2003, 23:44
So if I open a bicycle factory a bunch of beaurocrats are going to tell me how many to make and where to send them? And of course money is abolished so my "needs" will be met (by who exactly?) no matter if I build bicycles or just sit around smoking herb all day. So why should I?

I "need" a new car and a big house! I "need" a 16-track recorder to replace my 12-track! But I am too busy jamming with my band to work at the bicycle factory. Music is a "product" too, innit?

If my conclusions are off the mark, you need to explain it better. Examples always help.
MonkeyBoy
1008 posts

Re: Small scale societies where you . . .
Sep 08, 2003, 23:45
Karl Marx never really spoke of state ownership. It was Lenin who equated state ownership with socialism.
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

Re: Small scale societies where you . . .
Sep 08, 2003, 23:50
Well Marx is pretty fuzzy when it comes to details. Lenin had to apply the theory to the real world.

So I guess that begs the question -- what other options for an economic system are there besides:

1) "free markets" / supply & demand / "capitalism" -- in other words individuals make their own decisions about producing and consuming.

vs.

2) some form of "centralized control" where decisions are made for individuals, "for their own good" of course. ;-)

I don't know that Marx ever had a satisfactory answer to this question.

(And yes I admit I get my Marx-Engles-Lenin-Trotsky mixed up sometimes.)
MonkeyBoy
1008 posts

Re: "Common ownership"?
Sep 08, 2003, 23:55
Why not put all the bicycles in ware house where people can help themselves if they need a new bicycle?

Spend a couple of days building bicycles, a couple of days making music (which would be free), a couple of days growing herb for the local community. Im sorry but would you prefer 9-5 wage slavery to that.
Dog 3000
Dog 3000
4611 posts

Re: "Common ownership"?
Sep 09, 2003, 00:04
But why would I bother to build bicycles at all if I can just smoke herb and rock all the time? What is the incentive?

The problem with "utopian economics" is they are based on the assumption that everyone WANTS to work, and no one is lazy and selfish.

Who is going to volunteer to pick up the trash and scrub the toilets? Nobody I know!

If there were no economic incentives, what incentives would there be to get people to do unpleasant but necessary jobs? Everybody would only want to do the "fun" jobs.

I am no fan of "9-5 wage slavery" but I am still waiting for someone to come up with an alternative that might actually work.
MonkeyBoy
1008 posts

Re: A world without "money"
Sep 09, 2003, 00:08
I think many of the thousands starving to death even as we speak can define their needs (they need food). There is already enough agricultural capacity to feed the world only it isn't realised as prices are kept high.

Farmers in the developed world are actually paid (subsidies they call it) not to produce and excess stock is destoyed (quite how there can be an excess when there are chronic shortages in some parts of the world.....).
Pages: 18 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index