Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

That is interesting.

But I think we already decided we are not going to define anything.

The only thing I can point out is that I am not understanding your logic when you say that Capitalism will gravitate towards Communism. Considering you seemed to have defined Communism as not working Socialism.

[Nikov]

It is not a risk. It is a guaranty that most people would become free riders.

Some things work only because most people are not free riders.  I'm pretty sure farming cooperatives work this way.  It depends on the population.

Farm co-ops are corporations farmers form to pool their assets, allowing joint ownership of machinery that might be too expensive or too rarely used for an individual farmer to afford. There's no way to be a free rider because if a member doesn't meet their contract obligations they get sued for what's owed in the contract and thrown out.

[Criptfeind]

I think he was talking about hippie enclaves.

But I might be wrong.

[Aqizzar]

Sounds to me like the only real difference is the level of seriousness in repercussions for not pulling your weight.

[Nikov]

I think he was talking about hippie enclaves.

But I might be wrong.

Oh, collectives? Those are fun under state control.

[Lagslayer]

That is interesting.

But I think we already decided we are not going to define anything.

The only thing I can point out is that I am not understanding your logic when you say that Capitalism will gravitate towards Communism. Considering you seemed to have defined Communism as not working Socialism.

Sorry, I phrased it poorly. What I mean is that once someone has enough power, they just have to realize "Hey, I can do anything I want!" for Communism to emerge. In socialism, government already has all the power and all you need is the right (or wrong) person at the top and it all happens at once. Capitalism, however, has true competition between different parties, keeping any one entity from assuming total control. Eventually, however, one party will outcompete the others and drive them out, leaving them as the only real power. Then someone at the top has to realize "Hey, I can do anything I want!", and it will become Communism. Capitalism just takes longer to get there.

Also, sorry if it was already decided that we weren't going to define things. I didn't read all of the posts very thoroughly.

[Criptfeind]

I am sorry.

Communism!=Totalitarianism

[Max White]

Well no, communism is how you run your economy, not how you choose your leaders. So you could have a communist democracy, or a capitalist dictatorship... Personally I want to see a socialist monarchy, they seem cool!

[Phmcw]

It is not a risk. It is a guaranty that most people would become free riders.

Some things work only because most people are not free riders.  I'm pretty sure farming cooperatives work this way.  It depends on the population.

Farm co-ops are corporations farmers form to pool their assets, allowing joint ownership of machinery that might be too expensive or too rarely used for an individual farmer to afford. There's no way to be a free rider because if a member doesn't meet their contract obligations they get sued for what's owed in the contract and thrown out.

You could totally do the same in that case (actually, it's pretty much done : if you want social security , you'll have obligation, and are trowed out if you don't meet them, for instance by working undeclared).

[Aqizzar]

I keep trying to remind people that the academic spectrum of economic systems is not limited to Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism.  To the extent that it can be given one definition at all, Fascism is supposed to mean when private enterprise is in power over the state, or when the two into one entity.  In a lot of economic ways, the earlier American history of corporate-owned towns, where everyone's an employee paid in company-credit for company-stores with company-laws fits the definition.  You can apply the same sort of argument to when one franchise wields enough influence to use the state's power to enforce its market share.  (Provided you can fit an economy under one label, which I've stated my opinion on.)  But nobody ever wants to use the term "Fascism" because Hitler ruined it for everybody, and it's usually meant to mean "nonspecific evil government that I don't like".

Heck, the whole idea that economics and government are separate discussions is laughable, because the shape and nature of government power is what makes your economy what it is.  But of course, this thread has already taken host to (Farmers + Cooperation = Good Business Sense || Farmers + Cooperation + Government Oversight = The Gulag) so I know I'm not going to get any traction here.

[Criptfeind]

Please. Do we look like we want rational discussion?

At any rate, no it is not. But the spectrum between capitalism and socialism is much easier to understand in a purely economic and 2d way.

If we wanted to think hard we most likely would not be talking about this on some random forum with some random people.

Ending statement: It works for me and apparently most others to view the world in two dimensions. We just managed to get past black and white here, you ask for too much.

[Max White]

I wish had had an economy that used songs as currency...

[Criptfeind]

Hum. How would that work?

Counterfeiting would be high indeed.

[Max White]

Not the song copyright, the song itself, so one must preform to pay for things!

[Criptfeind]

Right. Inflation would be through the roof!