Potential Alternatives to the Capitalist System

Capitalism is the "default setting" of human interaction because it is what we do when left alone. The alternatives are various levels of intervention, which is where violence or threats of violence are used by a person or group of people to interrupt free interactions of other people. There are two kinds of intervention: Binary intervention and triangular intervention.

Binary intervention is where the group using violence forces an interactions between themselves and the individuals of society. For example the violent group can take property away from individuals, which is commonly called taxation or theft. The violent group can also command or forbid individuals from taking certain actions.

Triangular intervention is where the violent group interferes in the interaction between two or more individuals, for example commanding that one individual pay another individual a certain wage as proscribed by the violent group.

That's pretty much it. All alternatives are just going to be a different mix of these two types of violent interventions and at different intensities.

 

somewhat?????????????????actually before capitalism 60 million human souls slowly starved to death in China. The minute they switched to capitalism 60 million got rich. When you are rich you don't slowly starve to death. Do you understand. Capitalism was a miracle from God!

 

How long will those 60 million be able to maintain this before they run out of air to breathe and water to drink? If this type of Capitalism is a miracle from God then "God" is pretty cruel.


Image Credit: independent.co.uk


Image Credit: Kyodo News


Image Credit: Chinadialog.net


Image Credit: YouTube Channel: China Uncensored

 

actually those people in the pictures are a long way from slowly starving to death!! Their lifestyle is far far better now than it was when they were slowly starving to death!! Do you understand that starving to death is very bad?

 

You may have a point there, but let me ask my same question a different way. Some are not starving to death now, but how long do you think some of them will enjoy their enhanced life before all the waters become undrinkable and or all the air becomes deadly? Aside from long term effects, over 1,500,000 Chinese die of pollution a year: Study Finds Pollution in China Causes 1.6 Million Deaths a Year

 

you are being very silly today. Obviously they are making huge efforts to stop polluting their environment so capitallism won't be worse than socialism. At present they are estimating that pollution takes only 5 years off the average life while socialism took about 50 so they are making huge huge progress.

 

But here's the thing. Your definition of capitalism doesn't at all fit in with what the Chinese are doing. 30% of the Chinese economy is controlled through SOEs (state owned enterprises). The government maintains strict control of the banking sector, unlike Western nations whose banks largely dictate economic policy. Periodic corruption sweeps are conducted, and looters are thrown in jail. In the US, no looter has ever been prosecuted from the '08 crash.

 

How did you come up with that estimation (your source)?

Under socialism in China, the life expectancy doubled. Under capitalism, the air and water quality is trashed and claiming over 4,000 lives daily. It's so bad the system is hurting itself where the Chinese economy is losing 6.5 percent of GDP to pollution-rated costs.

 

How on earth could it double when socialism slowly starved 60 million to death? Do you think they were better off under socialism when the instant they switched to capitalism they eliminated 40% of all the poverty on earth??

 

The positives you speak of are short-term gains. 60 million will have died from pollution alone in less than 40 years if the Chinese don't do something more substantial about their environment. Moreover, we don't have to discuss socialism if you don't want to. There are other economic ideas out there.

I almost missed the question. It doubled under Mao in the late forties to mid 70's.

 

not short term at all!! In 1980 they accounted for 40% of the entire plants poverty ;since capitalism they have eliminated almost half the poverty on earth. This is long term not short term! It is a gift from God they likes of which they never could have imagined. Pollution is a trivial matter when you are slowly starving to death? Today they buy more cars than we do, see more movies , and have more smart phones!! They had nothing under socialism just like Cuba East Germany USSR North Korea Vietnam and 87 others. Surely you understand?

 

I do understand. Believe it or not, I see your point of view. However, I also see the side effects of too much material wealth and accumulation. Many of the Chinese don't seem to share your enthusiasm for the social, political, economic direction China has taken over the last decades. When many of these guys get enough of that new found wealth, they can't move fast enough out of China.

Why are even the wealthiest Chinese leaving? Air pollution, tainted food sources, and education were cited. A significant drainage is taking place in China and its because they are embracing a system that trashed the quality of living.

 

the point is it didn't trash it for the 100's of millions who didn't starve to death and who were lifted out of poverty!!! Sure the relatively rich want to leave if they can afford it but that has nothing to do with our subject. There would be no rich if not for Republican capitalism.

 

Looks like this post should have been in "The Case Against Capitalism" thread as it contains no "alternative" suggestion.

Societies make 'available' a great many things which most individuals could not produce on their own, and the most essential basic needs are produced much more efficiently and affordable as a result. Capitalism is not forced upon people, but it does make trade much easier than trying to find someone who might be willing to swap you a car for 11,000 pounds of chicken or some other equivalent. Living longer and living a better life requires one to participate in the production of their society. Only government can use force to take away your property by taxing or confiscating it. If acquiring your needs and/or wants are found to be of more value than retaining the property you own, then the choice is yours alone to make.

A responsible person does what is necessary to provide a life within the means available.

I have no complaints at all with capitalism, but only with our governments and the Federal Reserve banking system manipulation resulting in constant inflation which has brought about the massive wealth and income inequality that now exists and continues to grow.

 

No.
That is to misrepresent normative human relations.

Capitalism is not forced on you. Socialism is forced on you. For many, this is the key ideological difference between them.

If the government controls something you need to live, you kill them and take it.
Or, as more likely in a capitalist society, if the government or a corporation provides something you need to survive, you can always get it from somewhere else instead.
In this way globalism has defeated socialism in my country. They tried to control the means of production, and they managed to.
But instead of surrendering our country to them, we just ignored them and bought elsewhere.

 

Very true. Capitalism is peaceful and natural while Sanders wants to force his way on us at the point of a gun. This is why people get rich under capitalism and poor under socialism.

 

Participants,

Let's get the posts regarding Capitalism in here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/450790-case-against-capitalism.html.

This thread should be reserved for alternative Economic systems/ideas to Capitalism.

 

there are only two economic systems: capitalism and libsocialism. Do you understand?

 

Capitalism is a Property Theory that states individuals should control the means of production.
Socialism states that a group, usually the government (but not always so), should control the means of production.
Communism states that the people at-large should control the means of production.

It would seem you're entirely confused.

An Economic System answers 3 basic questions:

1] What goods shall we produce or services shall we provide?
2] How shall we produce such goods or provide such services?
3] For whom shall we produce such goods and services?

There are three major Economic Systems: Free Market, Command Market and Traditional Market and then hybrids of each.

 

what is traditional market?

 

Still used by nearly 2 Billion people, mostly in tribal and clan-based societies in Africa, Asia, South and Central America, and the South Pacific

Goods and services are distributed based on the particular tribe or clan's traditions (hence Traditional Market).

For example, the clan or tribal chief would get 10 shares of crops, the tribal elders would each get 8 shares of crops, the best warrior would get so many shares of crops, the largest family, the oldest family, or whatever traditions were used.

Goods and services are often based on your status within the group.

The Traditional Economy dates back to prehistoric times.

 

False.

This is a list of economic systems retrieved from wikipedia:

• Capitalism
• Communism
• Feudalism
• Hydraulic despotism
• Inclusive democracy
• Mercantilism
• Mutualism
• Network economy
• Non-property system
• Fascist socialization
• Palace economy
• Parecon
• Participatory economy
• Potlatch
• Progressive Utilization Theory (PROUTist economy)
• Proprietism
• Worker self management
• Social Credit
• Socialism
• Syndicalism

​

A few of these were mentioned in this thread already.

 

The post you responded to was just asking people to talk about capitalism on the other thread. This thread should be reserved for talking about other economic systems outside of capitalism in a what are viable alternative systems and how would we transition from this system to any of those if possible type of way. I'll answer this post on the other thread.

 

Typically we transist from one to the other violently.

We kill who ever has control over the resources and take them for ourselves. Once we are in charge we make up a new system that keeps us in charge.

 

You unknowingly describe the horror of liberalism that has shaped all of human history. Conservatives dont seek central power or central control over resources. Thus conservatism is the only viable route to world peace. Do you have the IQ to understand?