Your idea of an ideal society?

[Misanthrope]

@Rahvin: So you admit is a naiive fantasy but justify it under the name of being an ideal? Ill ask again: should a political system strive to work around the limitations of men and not asume and expect them to just fix themselves because it trusts the higher moral stature of people which we all know to not exist and will never exist?

What you are saying here is that you rather support a miracle and have faith on the ideas of capitalism on paper, just because you cannot figure out a way to install Comunism effectively? Im ok with you disagreeing with the dictatorship of the proletarian and Socialism as a transitory measure: I disagree with it too. But I fail to see what is so bad about comunism as a merely ideal society, without taking into account the impossible transition into it.

You know already know what I find fundamentally wrong about Capitalism as an ideal society build around it, but you have not made it clear exactly why you think Comunism as an ideal society is flawed and I want to hear it, beyond your justifiable horror towards the totalitarian measures Undocontrol proposes to establish Comunism.

 

[marduk1507]

You know already know what I find fundamentally wrong about Capitalism as an ideal society build around it, but you have not made it clear exactly why you think Comunism as an ideal society is flawed and I want to hear it, beyond your justifiable horror towards the totalitarian measures Undocontrol proposes to establish Comunism.

Your arguments which support your idea, that capitalism is flawed as an ideal society are derived from what capitalism is in fact. What you say about capitalism is derived from reality and thus cannot be valid as an argument for capitalism being flawed as an ideal society. Capitalism as an ideal is based on freedom, in the sense of self-realisation and bringing out the best in me as an individual (we are talking ideal here, so I ignore the fact that we do not choose where we are born, and if I was a child of a HIV+ junkie, my chances of any self-realisation would be close to 0). It is based on the idea that you own your self, your body, your mind, your talents, and that you should be given a chance to go wherever you want to go (not only in physical sense, but also mental, psychical). The only borders to that should be the freedoms of other people. As an ideal this doesnt presuppose unfair competition, because whatever you do, and however you piss off some people with your talent, they have a chance to prove themselves as well (in some other field, or in the same, but fairly) - in a fair competition (again I stress that its ideal we are talking about).

I dont think that, as an ideal society, any of the ones at hand is flawed. Communism is a nice idea as well, if I dont take into account the facts. So the question is, which ideal is better? I just dont like the idea of being dissolved in the collective of comrades, sharing everything and nothing, having everything and nothing. I think we should really base our thoughts on the applicability of these ideals in practice. In that sense, both capitalism and socialism/communism are flawed, as any other regime, but I think capitalism is the least human-unfriendly way of life out there.

 

[Misanthrope]

Wait, lets talk more specifically economy here. Capitalism enables individuals to own private property and to make use of that property to generate a profit in a free market. Ideally, the free market would for the most part regulate itself with competition.

But with that "total freedom to use one's property as capital" also comes the freedom to waste, and continue to produce income beyond your needs. The reality of things is that there is a limited ammount of capital in all its forms, being land and resources or means of production, both are limited. By allowing people freedom to waste inside a free market you are allowing an individual to take a hold of the limited resources and means of production.

So how can the Capitalism support "freedom as long as it doesnt takes away from the freedom of others" if the model lends itself to someone taking away the means of production from other people that also needs them? The ideology is flawed on its conception and thats why regulation like anti-trust laws are needed. But time and time again we have seen that a reactive goverment can never hope to react fast enough to control an open economy.

Thats why I cannot consider this system ideal, it makes it too easy and therefore encourages people to abuse the system and must spend most of its energy trying to avoid people infringing the freedom of others, and that is a direct result of privately owned property on a free market.

 

[marduk1507]

But with that "total freedom to use one's property as capital" also comes the freedom to waste, and continue to produce income beyond your needs. The reality of things is that there is a limited ammount of capital in all its forms, being land and resources or means of production, both are limited. By allowing people freedom to waste inside a free market you are allowing an individual to take a hold of the limited resources and means of production.

Thats a very good point. Yet I still think that these are already the implications derived from the fact that you have it "applied" in reality somewhere in the back of your mind. My point is that, as an ideal, every system which is not in itself based on doing harm to other people, is basically ok. There are several implications, similarly negative as those youve mentioned above, which can be derived from the idea of a communist society. Thats all I wanted to say.

 

[Misanthrope]

Fair enough.