andyofborg Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 In case it had escaped your attention, the problem is not using money. The problem is the capitalist system. and your alternative is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 and your alternative is? As I have stated in another post, there is no real alternative at present. But the system must evolve, it cannot continue as it is. It must change to meet the current situations, though this will take time, and time is the thing we do not have. I hope eventually it will change to a more egalitarian system, where the rich can still get their share, but not the lions share. That it becomes to realise that its wealth comes from the workers who create that wealth, and shares accordingly. At present there is no alternative system in place, we cannot have a socialist system, as we do not have international concensus. The system in waiting is too horrendous even to think of, that is, a religious tyranny, but they will rush to fill the vacuum should our system fail We must beware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 and your alternative is? Try reading a book or 5 as opposed to relying on forum soundbites. There are plenty of alternatives proposed by economists and scholars on both the right and left. Firstly, it's worth pointing out that pro-capitalist libertarians have been proposing alternatives to the current system for the best part of a century, claiming that state intervention has caused a lot of the problems we see today. They call the current system a form of corporatism that does not truly represent capitalistic, free market ideals. This is why you see so-called "right wing" activists such as the Tea Party movement in the US protesting the current Wall Street dominated political establishment. The Austrian school, for example, proposes free market capitalism as an alternative to the current "state sponsored" capitalist system. Murray Rothbard was a well known anarcho-capitalist. Cooperative scholars have also put forth various alternatives to the current system. David Schweickart has revived the economic philosophies of Henry George and mutualists such as Proudhon and proposed a new system he calls Economic Democracy, based on both real world examples and theoretical assumptions. Schweickart specifically addresses the TINA (there is no alternative) argument in the opening chapter of his book After Capitalism. Some people have referred to the system which rejects top down state management as it does neoliberal capitalism as "market socialism" or "free market socialism", which has more to do with mutualistic principles than typical state-planned socialist failures of the past. The economy would consist of co-operatively owned enterprises operating for profit in a free market. It takes elements from stakeholder theory, which is a huge subject in itself, advocating wider public stakeholdership of the means of production, yet maintaining the positive effects of free competition and capital investment. There are also those who believe the current system will not be overthrown, rather its inherent unsustainability will see it collapse from within like the Soviet experiment. This will inevitably lead to a post-capitalist world with a number of possible evolving outcomes. Do you want some more reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 As I have stated in another post, there is no real alternative at present. But the system must evolve, it cannot continue as it is. It must change to meet the current situations, though this will take time, and time is the thing we do not have. I hope eventually it will change to a more egalitarian system, where the rich can still get their share, but not the lions share. That it becomes to realise that its wealth comes from the workers who create that wealth, and shares accordingly. At present there is no alternative system in place, we cannot have a socialist system, as we do not have international concensus. I actually agree things need to change. I do not think camping in a church yard will bring about said change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 You are jesting here are you not? What should they be doing? Bartering with dead chickens and turnips? It wasn't the use of money but the use of credit cards. Which are issued by banks. And as one of their signs says, bankers are... well you get the drift! It was also the shopping in Tescos - plenty of independent shops in the area that they could support, rather than greedy big business. The independent shop does charge 84p for a pint of milk though, so perhaps that's why they go to Tesco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I actually agree things need to change. I do not think camping in a church yard will bring about said change. No, but it will draw attention to it. Churches are places of sanctuary and all shoud be allowed in them. It is very noble of you to accept that things need to change btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 It wasn't the use of money but the use of credit cards. Which are issued by banks. And as one of their signs says, bankers are... well you get the drift! It was also the shopping in Tescos - plenty of independent shops in the area that they could support, rather than greedy big business. The independent shop does charge 84p for a pint of milk though, so perhaps that's why they go to Tesco. I loathe and detest the capitalist system. But I work for it every day, and use its services. I do not see your drift here. You are looking at the pettifogging things and not the big picture. Buying milk and daily shopping will always have to be done, that is shop keeping. Capitalism far trancends such things. It is the manipulation of capital, and manouvering of the same in order to maximise its value. It is about the use of labour to increase its value and to minimise its cost. In other words, grind them down to the last penny. I was hoping we had seen the last of this behaviour, but like cancer, just when you think you have it beaten, it comes back with a vengance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I work next to St Paul's so have had the pleasure of this circus outside our office for the last week. I would have slightly more sympathy for an anti-capitalist/anti-bank protest if I didn't keep seeing them in Tescos and Starbucks paying for items with their Visa cards. Without a big dose of hypocrisy, socialism is an impossible ideal. It's always amazed me how anybody living in an affluent Western democracy and earning a comfortable wage can claim to be a socialist or communist. If they gave away all their possessions and income to poorer people, I could respect them, but until that happens I can only see them as glaring hypocrites. Some people may no like capitalism, but at least it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Without a big dose of hypocrisy, socialism is an impossible ideal. It's always amazed me how anybody living in an affluent Western democracy and earning a comfortable wage can claim to be a socialist or communist. If they gave away all their possessions and income to poorer people, I could respect them, but until that happens I can only see them as glaring hypocrites. Some people may no like capitalism, but at least it works. Nice try at a wind up man, but a failure. You are pretending that you dont what socialism means. Carry on, I know what you are from your previous posts. A bike mechanic, with delusions of granduer. Give it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 If they gave away all their possessions and income to poorer people, I could respect them, but until that happens I can only see them as glaring hypocrites. Some people may no like capitalism, but at least it works. This is typical of someone who has such a narrow minded (or just poorly read) understanding of anti-capitalist thought. I (and countless others on the left AND right) consider capitalism, or at least the version of it that exists today, as unsustainable and ultimately doomed for collapse in the same way Soviet communism was. Now, please tell me why that must mean I wish to give away all my possessions to the poor? I believe in individualism, markets, and freer markets than we have today, yet I see a lot of validity within what were traditionally socialist theories. I also see validity in free market theories espoused by pro-capitalists. There are many non-socialist critics of modern capitalism, but seeing the world in black and white (capitalism vs socialism) just makes you look ignorant. And yes, that goes for the protesters as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.