Slashdot Mirror

Monopolies and oligopolies are really capitalism gone wrong.

Look, I hate to burst your bubble, but what you're describing is the natural conclusion of capitalism. You can't say "capitalism is the best system" on one hand while describing in detail its very obvious and very current deleterious effects.

Capitalism is not a synonym for "well-oiled economny." Nor is it a synonym for "freedom" or "opportunity." Capitalism is a set of power relations, and nothing more. The conclusion of those power relations is the present day world.

You can't get around it, like most traditional economists do, by saying: well, that's not how it's supposed to work, so what we see here are aberrations. Just like you can't look at communist command economies and say, "Well, that's not how it's supposed to work." Tell it to the Polish.

We need a new alternative. People are brewing one as we speak.

People have. Postmarxist, postcapitalist economic thinking is alive and well. Of course, those people are now experiencing the "then they ignore you" phase ;)

I kinda regret doing it now but it paid the rent at the time...

This is a possible antidote to unchecked capitalism which has lead to greed and inflation which led this programmer to write a questionable piece of software in order to keep a roof over his head.

Perhaps if he were in a financially better position at the time, he would have passed this project by.

When money is more important than people you get all sorts of societal ills. I haven't seen any real lasting good come of the unchecked preoccupation with wealth--there is always a downside no matter how small or insignificant.

'...therefore humans have stopped evolving new systems for economic production.'
No we haven't http://www.parecon.org. Its just that people have stopped reporting such things.

"in the end, the free market will decide." or we can decide we dont want our lives run unfairly by competition and greed, dictated by the free market... parecon

No, seriously. It is.

Do you even know what socialist means?

bacchusrx.

I'm down on capitalism because I'm an anti-capitalist :) Capitalism is an elitist system where a few hoard resources (and hence wealth). That's not the type of society I want to create. If you are an elitist (and just so happens to be rich), it's a great system. But to me, it's not.

I don't really have a favourite per se, but one that I'm interested in is called parecon (participative economics). It is sort of a mix of socialism and anarchism.

Of course, few people actually understand what Capitalism actually is.

Actually it is easy to understand capitalism--far more easier than fascism, socialism, anarchism, communism, and others. It is easy to understand capitalism because it is the most dominant system. Even if you don't know much, you will run into it throughout your life. All you need to do is open your eyes. In addition, modern day economics is nothing more than capitalist economics. So anyone that takes economics knows what capitalism is all about. Lastly, if you don't know what capitalism is, you can always refer to the bastion of capitalism, or a good capitalist website like this.

Trust me, I know my arch-enemies: the capitalists. The question is do you know me?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

I haven't made up my mind (I know, easy way out but that's not an excuse--I REALLY haven't made up my mind yet). I'm a cross between a socialist and an anarchist--if that even makes sense. The system that I like right now is called Parecon. Check it out.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

The injustices, the violations of human rights, will continue as long as there is inequality among societies. Unfortuneately there are not enough resources in the world for everyone to live the "western lifestyle". In order to make things equal citizens of western countries would need to accept a siginificant decrease in quality of life. I am not willing to accept this (and I'm sure many others are with me). (emphasis mine)

Clueless? No, the problem is well understood. It has nothing to do with video games and it has nothing to do with ignorance. It's gutlessness on one hand and wishful thinking on the other.

No, the system is horribly flawed.

Of course, there is hope.

you know... once upon a time, the guy who fashioned horseshoes was the wealthiest and most important man on earth. and then, some people (who were more wealthy, incidentally) learned to mass-produce horseshoes. afterward, the horseshoe maker was a pauper.

you're an idiot if you think you're special. your skill will be automated and downsized: just like steelworkers, just like schoolteachers. capitalism can't stand real labourers in its kingdom of managers.

the rushing sound you hear is the sound of inevitability. why don't you wake up?

together, we can build a better world.

I'm really not so sure that choice of slaver is really freedom from slavery. Sure, people can "choose" not to work for someone, but they can't really choose to work for no-one. Sure, I could choose to create my own job, but, what happens if I'm no good at that? Well, I'll starve, that's what.

So, you could say that makes people who choose not to work (or choose not to work but are sufficiently un-enterprising to make a living at non-work) "lazy" or "stupid" or "poor risk takers"... but, that's pretty much what you call slaves too.

And, really, being an "employee" is all about ownership and forced labor. You labor, the product of your labor is used by capital owners to make a buck... you don't get to make any decisions (unless you're very lucky) about how your labor is used, to what end, and what that'll compensate you...

Slavery doesn't necessarily mean beatings, chains and racism, yanno. Slavery is what happens when you have no choice--when you have no real liberty with regard to the economy... and, in this society, most people don't.

So, yeah, we're slaves.

We should do something about it.

I find it really odd that in a species with such awesome technological capabilities--and, on an individual level, such a capacity for compassion, ingenuity, and all of those other things that make us unlike all the two-legged apes that came before--that we can't just figure out how to feed, clothe, and house everyone.

I mean, it's a big lie that we can't. The "work ethic" as such is just a big fallacy perpetuated by those who need us to work. We've got Stockholm Syndrome as a race, it seems.

A lot of people say, "Hey, Anonymous Coward, we have figured it out. It's called free-market capitalism!" Well, I'm glad to hear it. I guess there's nothing to worry about then, because, everyone is happy and there are no problems! -- That homless guy down the street with multiple sclerosis, he's just an actor! Yessirree.

And, if free-market capitalism won't solve those problems... then, fuck free-market capitalists and fuck the horse they rode in on (and that goes to you too, my libertarian friends--the greediest of the greedy in this world are afraid of your theories... they're that abominable and hate-filled that they literally *terrify* abominable, hate-filled people).

I think it's about time we put some of that compassion and ingenuity to work at figuring out how to make hunger, war, Presidents and employment irrelevant, because It's also a big, god-damned lie that suffering is required of us (even of some of us).

• http://www.zmag.org/pelac.htm
• http://www.parecon.org/
• http://www.zmag.org/lac.htm
• http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ParticipatoryEconomics

So, OSS is going to have to do what M$ does, and that is buy into the government through a lobbying system.

One reason some anarchists revile Noam Chomsky is because he advocates such activities to achieve the ultimate goal of a hierarchal-less society: in effect, working from within the system to change it, which is inherently contradictory to the very concept of autonomous free zones, etc. (I don't follow this line of thinking myself, but the idea is out there.)

Your characterization of anarchism is unfounded; it is not about defining freedoms, it is about the expectation that human beings are not children to be sheparded through their lives by external conventions or traditional modes of living, thinking and feeling. Anarchism, as a mode of thought, simply expects people to be grown-ups. Most people who have anything to say about the subject--which is to say, most people who are not in any shape or form an anarchist--fail to notice this component of it in their mad rush to disavow any possibility that human beings can live this way.

If you're really seeking to understand "anarchy" from a workable economic perspective, go to parecon.org for more information.

The question is not whether it is possible for everyone to gain from an economy. As someone who posted before me so aptly put it, the goal of redistribution of wealth is precisely for everyone to gain. However we do need to be aware of the fact that in our world today, the economic gain of some is overwhelmingly a result of economic loss of others. There are many ways to go about changing this, some of which have been practiced with some success, others are being formulated or being striven towards. For a good discussion on one such effort take a look at Michael Albert's (of Znet) ParEcon project page.

Thus, an economy based on property and ownership needs IP.

However, I believe that there are alternative economic models possible. Check out some of the local currency projects, which base their value on time of labor - these alternative economics could definately support a lack of IP.

Ithica, New York's HOUR System
Participatory Economics Project