The Seeds of Its Own Demise

[Sukerkin]

I read this fabulous article on the BBC this morning that elucidates quite well on the serious flaws in unregulated Capitalism. I have on occasion tried to get similar points across but it sadly seems that many people cannot sufficiently overcome their brainwashing that "Communism's Bad, Mkay?" to see what is happening in front of their noses:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14764357

One of the comments below the aticle laid out quite nicely what my core views are on this.

I quote the member, kcrozier93

The answer lies in neither Capitalism nor Communism, but in moderate Socialism, whereby we have nationalised institutions, such as our health service and railways, energy providers etc, but private business ventures are encouraged, but monopoly, especially when held by foreign multi-nationals, is prevented. Such a system operates in Belarus and its economy is doing very well

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I quote the member, kcrozier93

The answer lies in neither Capitalism nor Communism, but in moderate Socialism, whereby we have nationalised institutions, such as our health service and railways, energy providers etc, but private business ventures are encouraged, but monopoly, especially when held by foreign multi-nationals, is prevented. Such a system operates in Belarus and its economy is doing very well

I liked the article and do not take issue with the premise. The problem with socialism is that in a democratic system, the people can vote themselves "largesse from the public coffer," to steal a phrase. Ultimately, for democratic governance to succeed, the economy must be as unfettered as possible. When the economy is tied to public desires and populist demands through socialism and implemented by the democratic process, both the economy and the system of governance are doomed. Socialist ideals work best when implemented without influence by the people who desire free benefits. That is not a democratic system.

So if the choice is between an unstable capitalist economy in a democratic framework and a more stable socialist economy inside a non-democratic framework, I would vote for the instability of democracy and capitalism.

I don't think you can consider types of economic structure without considering the political framework under which they exist.

 

[crushing]

The article doesn't once use the any of the following words: regulated, unregulated, law, or rule. Is it to be assumed when capitalism is the subject that capitalism is unregulated? Is market anarchism a better term for that type of system?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And with regard to Belarus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus#Politics

 

[Blade96]

I don't like far anything. Far right, far left. There are flaws in total capitalism, total 'communism'and the people who can't see that are fanatics and the naive. I'm left wing, but not so far as to believe we should have total left wing society.

 

[Makalakumu]

I liked the article and do not take issue with the premise. The problem with socialism is that in a democratic system, the people can vote themselves "largesse from the public coffer," to steal a phrase. Ultimately, for democratic governance to succeed, the economy must be as unfettered as possible. When the economy is tied to public desires and populist demands through socialism and implemented by the democratic process, both the economy and the system of governance are doomed. Socialist ideals work best when implemented without influence by the people who desire free benefits. That is not a democratic system.

So if the choice is between an unstable capitalist economy in a democratic framework and a more stable socialist economy inside a non-democratic framework, I would vote for the instability of democracy and capitalism.

I don't think you can consider types of economic structure without considering the political framework under which they exist.

This is one of the reasons I turned away from American Liberalism and started exploring classical liberalism. It always sounds great on paper, but the special interests always seem to deliver themselves a larger and larger chunk of the pie at the expense of our rights. Essentially, when I strike the root as to why this occurs, I must consider the concept of force and that the government has a legalized monopoly on its use. We need to find a different way of finding social problems, because, the way we have now is essentially a gun on the table and any group who grabs it, gets to point it at anyone else at the table and take what they want. I don't know what the answer is, but I feel like the system we have now can never succeed in the long term. We can't rob Peter to pay Paul forever...