Economic Models/Systems For Society Today/Tomorrow

[Bob Long]

6 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Healthy competiton is fine.

 

But when it leads to the pain and suffering for the vast majority of humans literally dying on the streets , living in slums, etc. when others have excessively more than they need then it's not ok.

And as capitalism chugs along it leaves more and more in it's wake.   We're watching the middle class dwindle away to become lower class. Watching their dollars stretch and still not get by. Capitalism is a system of trickle up economics.  And there's no way around it.  Private property for private gain. And sooner or rather someone has it all, while everyone else has nothing.

 

How do people think these fascist populous leaders get elected?  Things are going economically south again. And people look to that powerful figure to bring them back to the good times. 

 

You know for a couple guys @Bob Long @Playoff Beered who champion capitalism and claim to be anti fascist and anti republican they sure do a hell of a lot of defending the very systems and conditions that allows these fuckers to come to power in the first place.

 

Capitalism leads to fascism, boys.

 

And you don't you forget it.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh fer fuck. Again!?!? What have I told you!!!

 

I am open to a fairer system. Don't throw more theory salad at me. Break it down for me to a practical example.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Fraser Institute is brain cancer. Lol

 

Practical v Theory.  Like what?

 

Also, why did @Ribs say I was "getting personal" when I called you a billionaire simp the other day? You a lawyer for the Aquilini Investment Group or something?

 

I'm not sure. Ribs is good people so maybe he was trying to turn down the temperature.

 

I didnt realize that you'd be scared by a beet, my apologies.

[Goose]

It would be nice (intelligent/rational) to live in a world where economies recognize the moral standing of non human animals 

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Healthy competiton is fine.

 

But when it leads to the pain and suffering for the vast majority of humans literally dying on the streets , living in slums, etc. when others have excessively more than they need then it's not ok.

And as capitalism chugs along it leaves more and more in it's wake.   We're watching the middle class dwindle away to become lower class. Watching their dollars stretch and still not get by. Capitalism is a system of trickle up economics.  And there's no way around it.  Private property for private gain. And sooner or rather someone has it all, while everyone else has nothing.

 

How do people think these fascist populous leaders get elected?  Things are going economically south again. And people look to that powerful figure to bring them back to the good times. 

 

You know for a couple guys @Bob Long @Playoff Beered who champion capitalism and claim to be anti fascist and anti republican they sure do a hell of a lot of defending the very systems and conditions that allows these fuckers to come to power in the first place.

 

Capitalism leads to fascism, boys.

 

And you don't you forget it.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh fer fuck. Again!?!? What have I told you!!!

Again your views are idealistic. Yes, it would be fantastic if we humans could live in harmony. But we can’t. And we never will. We are innately competitive. Read your (and others’) posts in this thread. They express a competitive nature. Snd some people will compete harder than others. And there are those who will compete with total disregard for others’ well being. 
Again, it’s just human nature. And IMHAO there aren’t any humans if we aren’t competing. 
Is there another system than Capitalism that encourages competition? We are a big world and we see capitalist democracies competing with other types of governments. But the commonality is we are competing. IMHAO we cannot get away from our natural instinct. And we shouldn’t want to either. Because without that competitive spirit we don’t exist.

Sorry I had to point this out. I know it’s not arguable. 

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, A_G said:

It would be nice (intelligent/rational) to live in a world where economies recognize the moral standing of non human animals 

For sure. It would be perfect if we were all 100% accepting of other humans’ needs and the needs of all living things. Sadly, we aren’t and can’t be. Our species would not exist if that was the case. 

[Canuckle]

 

Given my previous replies to discuss things in me trying to discuss, I'm not sure that you really are

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

I'm not sure. Ribs is good people so maybe he was trying to turn down the temperature.

 

I didnt realize that you'd be scared by a beet, my apologies.

 

You also didn't realize Aqua has slave labour picking his blueberries... under SURVEY SAAAAYS... capitalism.  The particular source and means to that coercive force may be different in monopoly capitalism or state capitalism as found in the former USSR, but the outcome is the exactly the same.

 

Ribs turning down the tempertaure or maybe he knows who you are. And since I'm new here (and you seem to have a few that rush to your defense) you obviously hold some weight around her for whatever reason. Still doesn't mean you know what you're talking about when it comes to political philosophy and the different modes of production they come with. That much I do know.  My intention was never to get into this monkey shit flinging game, but you guys make it pretty fucking hard not to when few comments from you show any kind of respect or good faith to begin with.

 

As for your question about "fairer systems" practical v theoretical we can discuss them as one and the same as they are actually existing, past and present.  Whether we want to drop the bs to actually discuss them is yet to be determined.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Canuckle

[Canuckle]

17 minutes ago, Alflives said:

For sure. It would be perfect if we were all 100% accepting of other humans’ needs and the needs of all living things. Sadly, we aren’t and can’t be. Our species would not exist if that was the case. 

 

Can't? 

 

On the contrary, if we couldn't humanity and society wouldn't be where it is. We would have destroyed ourselves completely. Humans are social animals, social organisms. We work in groups, live in groups, survive as groups. Always have, always will.

 

The only question is what structures and systems prevent us from ALL benefiting from it rather than just the few.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Canuckle

[Canuckle]

22 minutes ago, A_G said:

It would be nice (intelligent/rational) to live in a world where economies recognize the moral standing of non human animals 

Check this out:

 

Total liberation, also referred to as total liberation ecology or veganarchism, is a political philosophy and movement that combines anarchism with a commitment to animal and earth liberation. Whilst more traditional approaches to anarchism have often focused primarily on opposing the state and capitalism, total liberation is additionally concerned with opposing all additional forms of human oppression as well as the oppression of other animals and ecosystems.

 

Proponents of total liberation typically espouse a holistic and intersectional approach aimed at using direct action to dismantle all forms of domination and hierarchy, common examples of which include the state, capitalism, patriarchy, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, disablism, ageism, speciesism and ecological domination.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_liberation

 

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Can't? 

 

On the contrary, if we couldn't humanity and society wouldn't be where it is. We would have destroyed ourselves completely. Humans are social animals, social organisms. We work in groups, live in groups, survive as groups. Always have, always will.

 

Sure, but ultimately the individual wants to dominate the other. The group wants to dominate the other. That’s why we exist. 
It’s our nature to compete. And it’s often not a healthy competition. It’s a need to defeat the other. 
Again, read your posts. IMHAO your posts (as others do too) express this desire to defeat others. And not in such a healthy way. 
And I’m fine with this because I accept it as a needed part of who we are as a species. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Alflives

[Goose]

15 minutes ago, Alflives said:

For sure. It would be perfect if we were all 100% accepting of other humans’ needs and the needs of all living things. Sadly, we aren’t and can’t be. Our species would not exist if that was the case. 

 

Aren’t - true. Can’t - I refuse to accept the status quo can’t be changed.

 

1 minute ago, Canuckle said:

Check this out:

 

Total liberation, also referred to as total liberation ecology or veganarchism, is a political philosophy and movement that combines anarchism with a commitment to animal and earth liberation. Whilst more traditional approaches to anarchism have often focused primarily on opposing the state and capitalism, total liberation is additionally concerned with opposing all additional forms of human oppression as well as the oppression of other animals and ecosystems.

 

Proponents of total liberation typically espouse a holistic and intersectional approach aimed at using direct action to dismantle all forms of domination and hierarchy, common examples of which include the state, capitalism, patriarchy, racism, heterosexism, cissexism, disablism, ageism, speciesism and ecological domination.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_liberation

 

 

Yeah Ive crossed paths with this before. Pretty radical stuff.  Am i necessarily against capitalism/the state tho? Hard to say- I only dip my toes into political philosophy. I do find the connections/conflict between libertarianism and anarchism fascinating tho.

 

Admittedly, my focus has always been in ethics.  The moral principles/reasoning underlying those “isms”.  

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, A_G said:

 

Aren’t - true. Can’t - I refuse to accept the status quo can’t be changed.

 

 

Yeah Ive crossed paths with this before. Pretty radical stuff.  Am i necessarily against capitalism/the state tho? Hard to say- I only dip my toes into political philosophy. I do find the connections/conflict between libertarianism and anarchism fascinating tho.

 

Admittedly, my focus has always been in ethics.  The moral principles/reasoning underlying those “isms”.  

Alf believes in common sense and (of course) booze. People will compete. It’s in our nature just like it’s in our nature to booze it up. 

[Canuckle]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Sure, but ultimately the individual wants to dominate the other. The group wants to dominate the other. That’s why we exist. 
It’s our nature to compete. And it’s often not a healthy competition. It’s a need to defeat the other. 
Again, read your posts. IMHAO your posts (as others do too) express this desire to defeat others. And not in such a healthy way. 
And I’m fine with this because I accept it as a needed part of who we are as a species.

 

If you think I'm doing this to "defeat" anyone you'd be incorrect. But since that's the particular lense in which you view the world of course you'd come to that conclusion.

 

Of course competition is part of who we are. But so is being a social animal. If we weren't we would have destroyed ourselves long ago. I mean even @Bob Long comes from an anthropology background and can tell you that much.

[Goose]

6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Alf believes in common sense and (of course) booze. People will compete. It’s in our nature just like it’s in our nature to booze it up. 

 

Competition is one thing, oppression another.  I cant get behind oppression. Might explain why Im a misanthrope.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Canuckle said:

 

If you think I'm doing this to "defeat" anyone you'd be incorrect. But since that's the particular lense in which you view the world of course you'd come to that conclusion.

 

Of course competition is part of who we are. But so is being a social animal. If we weren't we would have destroyed ourselves long ago. I mean even @Bob Long comes from an anthropology background and can tell you that much.

Alf hopes your views are ultimately where people end up. That’s the Star Trek future that any sane person would want. IMHAO though it’s just not in our nature to get to that point. And if it was, we wouldn’t exist. Not too sure what’s that called but think it’s a paradox? 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, A_G said:

 

Competition is one thing, oppression another.  I cant get behind oppression. Might explain why Im a misanthrope.

Sure, oppression is bad. But our western (comfortable) lives is pretty much because there are billions who are oppressed, no? And add to that the oppression of the indigenous. We either give up our western (comfortable) lifestyles or we accept we are the oppressors. And it’s okay to accept who and what we are. It’s our nature. And it’s why we exist. 

[Canuckle]

11 minutes ago, A_G said:

 

Aren’t - true. Can’t - I refuse to accept the status quo can’t be changed.

 

 

Yeah Ive crossed paths with this before. Pretty radical stuff.  Am i necessarily against capitalism/the state tho? Hard to say- I only dip my toes into political philosophy. I do find the connections/conflict between libertarianism and anarchism fascinating tho.

 

Admittedly, my focus has always been in ethics.  The moral principles/reasoning underlying those “isms”.  

 

Fun fact: Libertarianism is leftist term! And  US right wingers co-opted it causing the confusion for so many.

 

So much so that I was once a right libertarian. ... until I saw all these powerful billionaires and 'tea party" ghouls come out in support of it. Was an instant.... wait what the fuck.  You fuckers is what libertarianism is everything its supposed to be against.! I was hoodwinked!!! And this lead me down the path to leftist political philosophy.

 

LIbertarianism

 

In the mid-19th century, libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics such as anti-authoritarian and anti-state socialists like anarchists, especially social anarchists,  but more generally libertarian communists/Marxists and libertarian socialists. These libertarians sought to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, or else to restrict their purview or effects to usufruct property norms, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management, viewing private property as a barrier to freedom and liberty.  While all libertarians support some level of individual rights, left-libertarians differ by supporting an egalitarian redistribution of natural resources. Left-libertarian ideologies include anarchist schools of thought, alongside many other anti-paternalist and New Left schools of thought centered around economic egalitarianism as well as geolibertarianism, green politics, market-oriented left-libertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. After the fall of the Soviet Union, libertarian socialism grew in popularity and influence as part of anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti- and alter-globalisation movements.

 

In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

[Canuckle]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Sure, oppression is bad. But our western (comfortable) lives is pretty much because there are billions who are oppressed, no? And add to that the oppression of the indigenous. We either give up our western (comfortable) lifestyles or we accept we are the oppressors. And it’s okay to accept who and what we are. It’s our nature. And it’s why we exist. 

 

When you say "we" who exactly are you talking about?   Buddy, that ain't us.  We don't sit atop the class pyramid. Of course we in western  nations benefit on that cheap labor for our goods and services (equally an issue) but that doesn't mean it need stay that way or that it's some law of human nature and that our "good lives" would dissappear if we ended the exploitation. It wouldn't. In fact, all that would happen is the people making the stuff would be paid the full value of labour and they could thrive too.

 

The question is who is really benefiting from all that cheap labor and exploitation?

 

The owners of the companies.  The stock holders.  That's who.

 

Sure, we might get cheap running shoes or some new consumer culture garbage product, but requiring "cheap" goods is only an issue because of our own exploitation here at home as well!! What if WE were also paid the full value of our labour?

 

The only reason any of those things are even neccessary is because of capitalism, private property rights, and the state appartus which controls the monopoly on force. That's the rub.

 

There's a reason critiques of capitalism have been around hundreds and hundreds of years. "Prominent among critiques of capitalism are accusations that capitalism is inherently exploitative, alienating, unstable, unsustainable, and creates massive economic inequality, commodifies people, and is anti-democratic and leads to an erosion of human rights and national sovereignty while it incentivises imperialist expansion and war, and that it benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority of the population."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism

 

 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

 

Given my previous replies to discuss things in me trying to discuss, I'm not sure that you really are

 

You also didn't realize Aqua has slave labour picking his blueberries... under SURVEY SAAAAYS... capitalism.  The particular source and means to that coercive force may be different in monopoly capitalism or state capitalism as found in the former USSR, but the outcome is the exactly the same.

 

Ribs turning down the tempertaure or maybe he knows who you are.

 

 

I'm batman 

 

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

And since I'm new here (and you seem to have a few that rush to your defense) you obviously hold some weight around her for whatever reason.

 

 

Dunno, maybe I make sense occasionally 

 

1 hour ago, Canuckle said:

 

Still doesn't mean you know what you're talking about when it comes to political philosophy and the different modes of production they come with. That much I do know.  My intention was never to get into this monkey shit flinging game, but you guys make it pretty fucking hard not to when few comments from you show any kind of respect or good faith to begin with.

 

As for your question about "fairer systems" practical v theoretical we can discuss them as one and the same as they are actually existing, past and present.  Whether we want to drop the bs to actually discuss them is yet to be determined.

 

No theory and practice are not the same. If it were there wouldn't be so many socialist failures 

[Canuckle]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

I'm batman 

 

Dunno, maybe I make sense occasionally 

 

No theory and practice are not the same. If it were there wouldn't be so many socialist failures 

 

Sucks being murdered, doesn't it.

 

You know for an economic system that claimingly "doesn't work" capitalist states and their military forces sure do their damnest to try and stop them don't they. LMAO. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

 

The problem is it DOES work. The theory AND practice is sound and they all know it.

 

Democratically elected leaders getting overthrown in covert and overt operations, installments of depostic regimes and dictatorships-- All good for private business. Who better to protect your investments than those with totalitarian control.

 

But the workers and community owning and controlling their own resources and workplaces and keeping the money for themselves????

 

 

Porky no likey.

 

Study your history, Billy Bob.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Canuckle

[Bob Long]

20 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Sucks being murdered, doesn't it.

 

You know for an economic system that claimingly "doesn't work" capitalist states and their military forces sure do their damnest to try and stop them don't they. LMAO. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

 

The problem is it DOES work. The theory AND practice is sound and they all know it.

 

Democratically elected leaders getting overthrown in covert and overt operations, installments of depostic regimes and dictatorships-- All good for private business. Who better to protect your investments than those with totalitarian control.

 

But the workers and community owning and controlling their own resources and workplaces????

 

 

Porky no like that.

 

Study your history, Billy Bob.

 

Sigh. Let's start small. Explain how an anarchist lemonade stand would work.

[Canuckle]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

Sigh. Let's start small. Explain how an anarchist lemonade stand would work.

 

Man... even that isn't a simple question.

 

There are different flavours of anarchism (and socialism for that matter) and they may or may not  advocate the same kinds of economies ala market/non market forms. eg. Mutualism (individualist anarchism) v anarchocommunism (collectivist anarchism) have different approaches and different answers to that question. There are anarchisms just as there are socialisms.

 

But for the sake of brevity here, let's say anarchocommunist economy.

 

You wouldn't have or even need a "lemonade stand" in an accomm society.... not in any meaningful sense of the term anyway.

 

There would be no "businesses" at all (at least in their present forms.)

 

The problem with the question is that concept of a stand is rooted in the idea of economic exchange-- a good or service provided for a cost.

 

But in Ancomm society there is no money. Property is held in common. Lemons are free to all.

 

Why would you even have a stand is a better question.

 

But let's say someone did(for whatever reason.) They'd give it away for free much like gift economies or even the digital commons online eg. people creating open-source software projects for all to use.  I made X, I did X because it was something that interested me and brings me joy for whatever reason.

 

Does that answer your question?

Edited October 27, 2023 by Canuckle

[Ilunga]

6 hours ago, Alflives said:

Again your views are idealistic. Yes, it would be fantastic if we humans could live in harmony. But we can’t. And we never will. We are innately competitive. Read your (and others’) posts in this thread. They express a competitive nature. Snd some people will compete harder than others. And there are those who will compete with total disregard for others’ well being. 
Again, it’s just human nature. And IMHAO there aren’t any humans if we aren’t competing. 
Is there another system than Capitalism that encourages competition? We are a big world and we see capitalist democracies competing with other types of governments. But the commonality is we are competing. IMHAO we cannot get away from our natural instinct. And we shouldn’t want to either. Because without that competitive spirit we don’t exist.

Sorry I had to point this out. I know it’s not arguable. 

 

If you are really interested in how capitalism has morphed into the rich get richer and the average worker has to fight harder for wages that equate to a fair share of the pie, research how the ratio of CEO to worker pay has exploded in the last 3 - 4 decades, which incidentally coincides with Reagan's trickle down economics.

Research how credit cards were " weaponised " by the banks in the late 60's- 70's. 

For the last 40+ plus years there has been a increasing continuous flow of wealth to the " top" 1 percent of the population culminating in what happened during Covid. 

 

 

The top 1 percent of Americans have taken 50 trillion from the bottom 90 percent 

 

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

 

Will always remember the government bailouts to the banks after the GFC.

The people who fucked shit up still got their bonuses. 

 

 

[Bob Long]

5 hours ago, Ilunga said:

 

If you are really interested in how capitalism has morphed into the rich get richer and the average worker has to fight harder for wages that equate to a fair share of the pie, research how the ratio of CEO to worker pay has exploded in the last 3 - 4 decades, which incidentally coincides with Reagan's trickle down economics.

Research how credit cards were " weaponised " by the banks in the late 60's- 70's. 

For the last 40+ plus years there has been a increasing continuous flow of wealth to the " top" 1 percent of the population culminating in what happened during Covid. 

 

 

The top 1 percent of Americans have taken 50 trillion from the bottom 90 percent 

 

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

 

Will always remember the government bailouts to the banks after the GFC.

The people who fucked shit up still got their bonuses. 

 

 

 

I wouldn't argue that we've seen this happen to a large degree, of course this is a current outcome we're seeing right now. What I would argue is the main reason it happened is because we got lazy politically in the west, not because its the worst system we have.  We've taken for granted that democracy will always be there for us and serve us well, when in fact we can't stop being active otherwise the pigs take over the trough. It also doesn't mean that some other system like socialism or anarchy are better because we haven't been paying proper attention to our current system. Just my 2 cents. 

[Bob Long]

8 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

Man... even that isn't a simple question.

 

There are different flavours of anarchism (and socialism for that matter) and they may or may not  advocate the same kinds of economies ala market/non market forms. eg. Mutualism (individualist anarchism) v anarchocommunism (collectivist anarchism) have different approaches and different answers to that question. There are anarchisms just as there are socialisms.

 

But for the sake of brevity here, let's say anarchocommunist economy.

 

You wouldn't have or even need a "lemonade stand" in an accomm society.... not in any meaningful sense of the term anyway.

 

There would be no "businesses" at all (at least in their present forms.)

 

The problem with the question is that concept of a stand is rooted in the idea of economic exchange-- a good or service provided for a cost.

 

But in Ancomm society there is no money. Property is held in common. Lemons are free to all.

 

Why would you even have a stand is a better question.

 

But let's say someone did(for whatever reason.) They'd give it away for free much like gift economies or even the digital commons online eg. people creating open-source software projects for all to use.  I made X, I did X because it was something that interested me and brings me joy for whatever reason.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

First, thanks for providing this, finally something we can work with.

 

So a number of problems are evident. Property held in common is a concept that can't work for everything. How far does this go? Do I give up my bed tonight because you want it? where do I live? what happens when we want the same object?

 

Providing service at no cost minimizes the value of my effort. What incentive do I have to not do the bare minimum to survive?

 

You will also not see the kind of innovation needed to create something like a Digital Commons. The level of effort and time it takes to create something like that leaves me no time for subsistence needs. Who's going to feed me in your utopia while I create something like that?

 

The idea you are proposing only works in a bubble that only survives due to the creation of wealth outside of your bubble. It could never work as a solution for everyone.

 

Also, there's really no such thing as a non-market economy. As far as market economies go, its our natural state of exchange. E.g., we have examples of First Nations objects being traded across all of north america in a complex trade network. We have the Ancient Greek trade routes. We can go on and on, every culture has created a market economy of some kind.

 

This idea of just being able to survive by doing what interests you and brings you joy is not feasible as a way to organize an entire society. 

 

 

 

[Goose]

17 hours ago, Alflives said:

Sure, oppression is bad. But our western (comfortable) lives is pretty much because there are billions who are oppressed, no? And add to that the oppression of the indigenous. We either give up our western (comfortable) lifestyles or we accept we are the oppressors. And it’s okay to accept who and what we are. It’s our nature. And it’s why we exist. 

 

Should the oppressed merely accept their oppression? Should we as a whole accept that even if some stand to benefit at the huge cost of others?

 

More fundamentally Alf, we are rational creatures. We can make mistakes (fallible) but the ability to reason (and act upon it) is paramount.

 

17 hours ago, Canuckle said:

Fun fact: Libertarianism is leftist term! And  US right wingers co-opted it causing the confusion for so many.

 

So much so that I was once a right libertarian. ... until I saw all these powerful billionaires and 'tea party" ghouls come out in support of it. Was an instant.... wait what the fuck.  You fuckers is what libertarianism is everything its supposed to be against.! I was hoodwinked!!! And this lead me down the path to leftist political philosophy.

 

Ive been sporadically reading Robert Nozick “Anarchy State & Utopia”.  He’s had some interesting views on animals so I figured Id learn more about his particular version of libertarianism.

 

To your point, not many people have a real coherent understanding of political philosophy. It’s a lot of hard work.  Kind of brings me back to my point w Alf.