Rex Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I never had anything against capitalism. I thought it was fair to deserve what man had worked for. Now looking back, I think capitalism is one of the main reasons why animals have been dying. Money changes people, and people don't care where it comes from as longest they get their profits. McDonalds could be an example, or people selling animals to labs. I think listening to crust and anarcho punk for the last 4 years really made me think about capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 do you think under a completely anarchic system there would be no trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 do you think under a completely anarchic system there would be no trade? maybe not anarchic system, I don't know if there's really a reason to be trading. Oil has been one of the reasons people have been dying for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pelicanAndrew Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Under complete anarchy there would be no need for trade. You might help your fellow man out and he might help you out but it wouldn't be trade rather than communal help towards a common goal of possibly getting more food or different food. There wouldn't be any progress towards capital or anything. Just survival tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelhobson Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 do you think under a completely anarchic system there would be no trade? Yes, because clearly anarchy and capitalism are the only two options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I think all forms of government and business can work peacefully and successfully...they just don't because too many people suck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odidnetne Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I think all forms of government and business can work peacefully and successfully...they just don't because too many people suck Ditto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 If I help you build a house and you give food then thats still trade even if its just because I helped you and you help me. People are always going to have something that another person wants, which means there will be trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andgbr Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) A system is like a diet, if you don't do what you're suppose to do, things won't work out.. Anything can work, from Anarchism to Communism, all we need is the right society for it. Personally, i'd choose Anarchism, but, again, it wouldn't work for the society that we live in. Before fixing the system we must fix the people. Edited January 30, 2007 by andgbr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Messplay Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Personally, i'd choose Anarchism as my type of government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andgbr Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Personally, i'd choose Anarchism as my type of government It was an expression. There is no need to take it literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Messplay Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Personally, i'd choose Anarchism as my type of government It was an expression. There is no need to take it literally. Oh I know, I know. That's why I gave the little smile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelhobson Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 If I help you build a house and you give food then thats still trade even if its just because I helped you and you help me. People are always going to have something that another person wants, which means there will be trade. I think you're missing the point CB, trade does not = capitalism. Trade happens under many different systems. Capitalism is the in it's most basic form a free-trade system in which capital is privately owned. My primary problem with capitalism is that it allows a very few individuals to amass wealth at the expense of the mass of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xdarthveganx Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 If I help you build a house and you give food then thats still trade even if its just because I helped you and you help me. People are always going to have something that another person wants, which means there will be trade. I think you're missing the point CB, trade does not = capitalism. Trade happens under many different systems. Capitalism is the in it's most basic form a free-trade system in which capital is privately owned. My primary problem with capitalism is that it allows a very few individuals to amass wealth at the expense of the mass of people. Adam Smith wrote that capitalism will always promote an oligarchy and goes against the spirit of free trade. You nailed it right on the head michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andgbr Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Personally, i'd choose Anarchism as my type of government It was an expression. There is no need to take it literally. Oh I know, I know. That's why I gave the little smile. ohhh.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I cant disagree wtih adam smith but I think even under anarchy there would be capitalism. Maybe somebody makes a great shoe and other people like it, so they want to acquire the shoes through whatever means are agreed upon. Wouldnt this be capitalism? Smith also talked about the need for morality within an economy, something certainly gone for the most part. I also think that an anarchic system even if it does have some capitalist elements will make oligarchies impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xdarthveganx Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I cant disagree wtih adam smith but I think even under anarchy there would be capitalism. Maybe somebody makes a great shoe and other people like it, so they want to acquire the shoes through whatever means are agreed upon. Wouldnt this be capitalism? Smith also talked about the need for morality within an economy, something certainly gone for the most part. I also think that an anarchic system even if it does have some capitalist elements will make oligarchies impossible. by all accounts that is not capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronco Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I cant disagree wtih adam smith but I think even under anarchy there would be capitalism. Maybe somebody makes a great shoe and other people like it, so they want to acquire the shoes through whatever means are agreed upon. Wouldnt this be capitalism? Smith also talked about the need for morality within an economy, something certainly gone for the most part. I also think that an anarchic system even if it does have some capitalist elements will make oligarchies impossible.Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately [1] owned and operated for profit and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor and money (see finance and credit).Like has allready been pointed out, trade does not equal capitalsim. I think the main points of capitalism is privately owned means of production and a 'free market' . And to answer the question: I dont really think capitalism is responsible for animal opression, but I think it's necessary to get rid of capitalism to get rid of animal opression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Ahh Bronco I was just going to propose that it is perhaps private property which is really the divisive issue between me and I guess most everyone on this thread. Yes Yes property is theft and all that business. You guys wear me out. "Most anarchists agree that exploitation and oppression are wrong and need to be eliminated from society. Where anarchists differ is why exploitation and oppression occur. The anarcho-socialists usually blame capitalism for all the ills of mankind, hence their opposition to capitalism in any form. The anarcho-capitalists take the opposite approach, and blame socialism for all the world’s problems, and oppose socialism in any form. What both sides ignore is that exploitation and oppression is a human problem, independent of any economic system. The state is the greatest exploiter and oppressor of mankind, and anarchists of all stripes would do well to concentrate on eliminating the state. "http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/weebies/weebies4.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 In an anarchy system individuals will also be allowed to be capitalists in their own right...and they may form a personal free trade that is just as bad assuming the goods they are trading are very important and can't be made by everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CollegeB Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Unless they have a private army to back up their control and continue to gain more resources I dont think anything really big can happen. For one thing this group that gains control over a valuable resource will only be able to operate in a select area, I believe there would be to much competition over the resource worldwide for them to gain a hold over a large area. And also if this group who controls the resource wants too much for it they will start to lose customers since a customer would be free to go anywhere they wanted to. Makes sense to me, but maybe i'm just totally insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offense74 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Capitalism is just a natural extension of individual freedom.The fundamental question that should be asked is: Who ownes you? Do you have the right to your thoughts, your labour, your hands, your organs? If you believe that you are the rightful owner of all these things a free market will follow.Obviously, societies of various kinds (the imagination of oppressive ways seems to be endless among humans, remember "It's not fascism when we do it!") haven't stopped opression towards animals.If noone eats meat the problem is solved. Whether you give it, take it, buy it or otherwise aquire it is pointless, it's the minds of people that have to change regardless of the context.In the history of our species we never had a bigger opporturnity to eat well and be nice to each other. We are for the first time in history not chronically hungry. Efficiency in production made this possible, without natural competition on the market this would never have happened and we would still be hungry and clutching on to whatever we could eat, including animals. The difference is that we today, for the first time, have a choice, we just have to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now