Well, one of the forms is anarcho-capitalism, and basically it says let's overthrow the government and let the corporations have a free-for-all. The inherent flaw, though, is that it assumes everyone is morally good and will follow an almost communist philosophy by not overstepping their bounds....so, yes and no.....
anarcho capitalism is not and never will be anarchist.
Yay! AP tests finally over, at least for this year. Ian, I should be free most afternoons, message me via G+ or email when you want to talk.
Socialist capitalism is a thing. Also, anarchy is, well, for a lack of words, stupid, but so is pure oligarichal capitalism. The extremes game only leads to frustration and regret.
"America and other capitalist societies have their poor and their problems that need to be solved, but in the scheme of things our poor are doing a whole lot better than any other society or economic system ever."
I wouldn't say this as an absolute. I had a very interesting discussion with a college anthropology student once about what defines a "primitive" or "advanced" society, or economic system, etc. He pointed out that, for instance, there are many traditional economies in which people only have to work 1-4 hour days to get by just fine, and the rest of their days are spent sleeping in, playing, doing essentially whatever they want. They may not have advanced technology, and they may not have the freedom of work that we do, but work isn't nearly as important of a part in their life, so it doesn't matter as much to them. Also, they're much more free in almost every other aspect of life, and nobody in those cultures has problems with stress like is so common in the capitalist world. Of course now they're getting screwed over by capital tourism, but it worked for a long time.
In any case, my personal objection isn't with capitalism in general, only the unregulated kind. Ultimately, pure capitalism suffers the same fate as direct democracy. Pure systems rarely ever work -- it's better to have a combination of aspects from several systems.
Capitalism is a great system if you need something that's stable and somewhat self-regulating but you know you don't have much control. However, as you're able to involve citizens more liberally in government, you're also able to more liberal with the economy, allowing the people to control it consciously rather than unconsciously. Essentially, if you involve citizens closely in their government, the economy becomes better as a whole.
On thing is clear through all of this, though: There is no perfect, one-size-fits-all economy. Different countries and cultures call for different economies, and even then there is no one right answer for any single country. Complicated stuff.
"human nature is to cooperate, not compete."
I disagree. Humans are driven by evolutionary pressures to naturally do whatever is best for them. If this means direct competition, so be it. If it means greed and cheating the system, so be it. If it means cooperation, so be it. If that's not competition in the capitalist sense, I don't know what is.
By building societies, we are trying to get above this. However, then it become a battle of true morality vs. human nature (selfish morality) and what is true morality, not a battle about what is human nature.
stuntdude: I agree pure capitalism isn't great (but America's isn't pure). Also, you make a good point about traditional economies.
I might question whether or not conscious control of the economy is actually effective though. The economy is a very complicated system (by the literal mathematical definition of complex) and as a result minor changes can have drastic and unforseen consequences. Whenever we purposefully mess with it we end up screwing someone over. Sometimes it must be done, but in general I think letting the self regulating system run its course is best.
Yes, America's standard of capitalism is very far from pure -- in some areas too far, in some not enough.
As far as people being screwed over, it seems that's something that happens when markets are left to their own devices, as well. You make a good point about the question of control. I guess there are really certain areas that probably should and shouldn't be self-regulating -- for instance, the areas where being screwed over means potential death, like health services (and environmental protection, to think globally), should definitely be actively controlled in my opinion, at least a good amount more than they are now.
Health services - there's a topic for debate - I'll make a thread.
No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture By NATALIE ANGIER New York Times, April 13, 2004 Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis 20 years ago selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate. ... The victims were all dominant adult males that had been strong and snarly enough to fight with a neighboring baboon troop over the spoils at a tourist lodge garbage dump, and were exposed there to meat tainted with bovine tuberculosis, which soon killed them. ... With that change in demographics came a cultural swing toward pacifism, a relaxing of the usually parlous baboon hierarchy, and a willingness to use affection and mutual grooming rather than threats, swipes and bites to foster a patriotic spirit. Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared...
Capitalism is an economic system predicated on expansion. Any regulations to control it will be damage the economy and be abolisioned. This is also why capitalism MUST have collapse, it can't expand forever on a finite planet. Capitalism isn't stable just look at 1929 or 2008
Read kropotkins conquest of bread, species compete with eachother but cooperate internally. The early tech startups ran as communes. All corporations opperate as state socialist regimes.
Small groups can operate as communes, but on a nation-wide scale such a system is doomed for failure.
Communism has 3 features:
1. statelessness: there is no body of buerocrats to determin how things are run, the people in the community determine how things are run (ancient Athens)
2. Things come from each person according to ability and to each according to need (instead of having to pay for medical care a person would get it from the ability of the doctor according to the needs of there illness)
3. Classless: there are no people with more control of productive assets than others.
I agree that communism sounds great in principle and that governments tend to be inefficient - that's why I'm a fan of capitalism - its an economic system that keeps the government out of the way as much as possible.
But in practice communism just doesn't work.
Also, equal is not the same as fair. That's where the problem lies. Communism is equal - not fair. Take a doctor for example - they go to years of school and work really hard to get that good, well paying job. Do they really deserve exactly the same pay and assets as someone who has done basically nothing - of course not! A system that denies that ruins all incentive and is very unproductive.
Also, speaking of medical care a large portion of the extra cost is due to the threat of huge malpractice lawsuits - that's where I think the government should step in, rather than focusing on providing universal healthcare. Anyway, that's a bit of a digression, but I thought I'd bring it up real quick.
Yes, because high costs, I'm sure, are the only problem with public healthcare in capitalist society.
stuntdude: Sarcasm? What's your point exactly?
My point is, just because one problem could be solved without socializing healthcare does not mean all problems could be, or that it should not be done.
True - I'm not saying its necessarily the best method, but in general I think we should go to great lengths to keep as many things as privatized (privatised?) as possible simply because government is very inefficient.
Besides isn't making healthcare affordable for everyone the only point of healthcare reform? Or am I missing something?
I'm curious where your premise of "government is always very inefficient" comes from.
Also, you are missing something: the huge difference between making something cheaper and making something "affordable for everyone." Privatized healthcare could be made cheaper than it currently is, but that is a long shot from making it equally accessible to everyone.
"I'm curious where your premise of "government is always very inefficient" comes from."
Have you ever been to the DMV (for example). I'll make military an exception here.
"The huge difference between making something cheaper and making something "affordable for everyone."