The economy in the United States is in a collapse.  The Capitalist system does not work anymore; banks have become more powerful than our politicians.  The government now has a policy based around Fear and Greed.  The rich are getting richer and more powerful, while the great masses of America wallow in poverty.

Must we continue to exist in this passive state, only living to serve the rich and powerful?  Or do we, the great masses, stand up against the policies Fear, and Greed, and God?  We must break the bonds that separate us, we must pull down the centers of Greed and Fear and we must pull down the houses of God.  These borders are created to separate us into individuals where we can be controlled easier.

We must stand up, against the tyranny of the centers of Greed, and Fear, and God.  Quoting John Adams:  "People should not fear government, government should fear people."  Once we stand up to Fear, to Greed, to God, we will become united!

This being said, I advocate the collapse of the Capitalist system and the foundation of the United Socialist Federal Republic, in which the government will exist to serve the people.  Capitalism is Dead.  We must put it out of it's misery and move on toward Socialism.

Views: 364

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Adriana beat me to it.

The revolution Andrew may be referring to could be Chavez' "Bolivarian Revolution" which, of course, is a social movement rather than an armed uprising.

Broadly speaking, I find myself in full support of Chavez' goals with this movement:

"Venezuelan economic and political sovereignty (anti-imperialism).
Grassroots political participation of the population via popular votes and referendums (participatory democracy).
Economic self-sufficiency (in food, consumer durables, etc...).
Instilling in people a national ethic of patriotic service.
Equitable distribution of Venezuela's vast oil revenues.
Eliminating corruption."
If you had actually spent any time in a country with a socialist, anti-capitalist system (N.B.: I'm excluding systems that are a mixture of socialism and capitalism, such as most of the Western world), you'd see how inefficient economic systems are without incentives for individuals to work hard. What is your incentive structure? Work hard or you starve? With a gun in your back?

Moreover, productivity is more than just putting in the hours. It's about trying to do things more efficiently. What is the incentive in your system for people to make a job more efficient, say, by reducing the amount of labor required to produce something?
Would our love for tech gadgets and nifty cars and the possibility of being on that Virgin spaceship flight be enough to drive productivity? Are we, possibly, at a point where we will be able to cut out the middle man (money) because, after all, it's not the money people want, but the things the money will get them that drives the want for more of the green stuff? Or, does money, in and of itself, offer something of value?
Hi Andrew,

Communism once swept the world. Its idealism was contagious. The problem is: it ignored too much of human nature. I see little difference between communism and the degree of socialism you're talking about.

It turns out that incentive is very important for productivity. And for incentives to work they need to be fair (within market tolerances). Most humans are naturally lazy. Many would relax their whole lives if they could get away with it. The way to overcome this tendency is through incentive. That means fair pay as well as opportunities for less tangible rewards like: recognition, title(s)/promotions, professional and personal advancement, etc.

A certain segment of the population will reject these incentives, opting instead for autonomy and independence. These are the entrepreneurs and exceptionally creative folk. Also among them are the lazy folk who really don't want to work . . . and if forced to work, they will do so lackadaisically, exerting minimal effort or even sabotaging the employer.

Without the capitalist system of incentive and reward, socialism (to the degree you're advocating) only inflates the number of lazy, lackadaisical, folk with disenfranchised people who see no point in contributing to a system that won't reward them for their individual efforts.

Both cooperation and competition are needed in the workplace. I certainly would feel no loyalty to a system that treats me like a number instead of a person.
I think that might be at least part of the point some of us were trying to make in this thread: That socialism by itself will not solve a country's problems and would likely cause more harm than good, just as pure anadulterated capitalism would do the same.

What is required is a mix of policies that suit the needs of that particular country. There isn't a one-size-fits-all socioeconomic strategy such as the OP is suggesting. Any school of thought when followed to exclusive and extreme ends is ultimately damaging.
The evidence from China is that two generations of philosophically materialist proles will "clean the pipe" for a rational society to form. The example of the Soviet Union is that Russions can screw up a two car funeral.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service