[cathartic moment]

I've recently read through Chill's thread about ideology (viewtopic.php?f=45&t=133227). I found Dagoth Ur's arguments to be very persuasive, and to echo some of my own thought's.

It definitely makes sense in many ways to have an ideology - to make use of the ideas of other people, and to make use of the efforts of people who may have spent entire lifetimes considering particular ideas. Dagoth Ur is also correct to say that we all have an ideology - one formed from the ideas floating around us in the society in which we matured. So it only makes sense to recognise that, and to use it as a starting point.

People are stronger when working in groups with others, than they are when working alone, and even radically individualistic Libertarians and Anarchists like to associate with similarly minded people. So it makes sense for me to find others like myself.

The problem is - I don't fit in. When I do the political compass test, I come out as centre right, but socially very liberal. There aren't many famous people near my position. And whilst I often find allies on these boards for particular opinions I hold, I haven't noticed anyone with whom I'd agree across a wide range of topics.

Maybe the issue is that my ideas aren't properly thought out. If I was criticising myself, I could say that I've taken a mish-mash of views from a variety of sources that don't hang together. There are big questions that I haven't even considered, and maybe my beliefs contradict each-other because they haven't been considered to the sort of depth that serious political philosophers require. If so, then feel free to point out these contradictions, since I can only learn.

Or maybe there are others close to me? Is there some group out there with whom I could feel kinship? Perhaps some smaller movement that doesn't get much publicity amongst the behemoths of free market liberalism and socialism?

I've tried to give a quick summary of my thinking below. Any ism's anywhere close?

I am extremely distrustful of any concentration of power amongst a small number of people. This leads me not only to reject most authoritarian ideologies (communism, socialism, fascism), but also to reject Libertarianism (since Libertarians so often act as enablers for furthering corporate power).

I believe that individuals have a duty beyond themselves, and believe that inequality is currently too high within many Western societies (USA, Britain etc..) I'd support policies to reduce inequality, such as progressive taxation, support for education, and strong inheritance taxation.

I believe that global warming is currently the most serious problem that the world faces.

I believe that global capitalism must be reined in, since serious efforts to tackle either inequality or global warming (or even to balance budgets!) are impossible when capital can move freely across borders.

However I recognise that capitalism can work very effectively on the small scale, and that free market competition can often be a good thing.

I believe in the freedom of the individual. Freedom of speech and religion. Open government that is visible to all. I support organisations such as Amnesty, the Electronic Freedom Foundation and Wikileaks. I am an atheist.

I see Anarchism as hopelessly utopian. I can't understand how any sort of Anarchist system would adequately be able to organise a modern industrial society to the extent that stuff gets done, and if anarchism was introduced into a society such as modern Britain (where I live), with it's high population density and strong reliance on trade, then the result would be economic collapse and starvation.

I believe in a small central state, with an essentially technocratic role. It would be responsible for redistribution of resources, and for setting national standards, but would have relatively few employees. Most of the actual work of government (health, education etc.) would be performed by local government. I believe in measures being taken to stop concentrations of power in any one place within private industry. I'm a little weak on what exactly these measures might be, but they could go so far as to place limits on the size of companies (perhaps something along the lines of "any company with more than 500 employees must be run as a co-operative"). Very large companies run by a small number of individuals currently enjoy far too much influence over our culture, and corrupt our political system (cf Murdoch, but also many others more subtle).

Democracy is problematic, as can be seen by the poor quality of much popular political discourse (although discourse on these boards is sometimes pretty good), but I haven't thought of anything better. Perhaps it could be tweaked in some fashion. I definitely see the "first-past-the-post" system as used in the UK and US as a failure, since it's far too prone to corruption by modern electioneering methods. Direct democracy is a foolish idea, and I'd view it's supporters as shallow idealists.

I have some sympathy for nationalist concerns. The leftist assumption that "all peoples are created equal" is completely unproven, and the idea that all cultures are equal is complete rubbish (although I recognise that there are still things that we can learn from at least some other cultures). I believe in equality of opportunity, but not in equality of outcome.

I can see I have something in common with Social Democratic and Green movements, although both of these groups tend to push for a state that is far larger than I am comfortable with, and both tend to support ideas that make me uneasy (e.g. a stronger EU, and loose border controls). Members of these movements are likely to see me as being far too rightist and reactionary.

I can also see ideas of some famous thinkers that I can respect - e.g. Keynes and Schumacher. But both of these individuals are long dead. I'm not so aware of modern thinkers - possibly because modern intellectuals are so rarely mentioned in conversation.

[Daktoria]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_nationalism

[cathartic moment]

Thanks.

I'd agree that many of my ideas lie in the same direction as distributionism, although they don't go nearly as far as the philosophy described in Wikipaedia. So I'd be happy to head in the same direction - I'm just not sure I'd want to reach the destination (just as a socialist may want to travel in the direction of greater Marxism, without necessarily reaching communism).

Maybe I should read more about the subject - since short of violent revolution, the direction in which ideas take society is far more relevant than the end result. Although I do feel slightly put off by the links between the philosophy and the catholic church.

I may well be a liberal nationalist. But I'd see that as more a matter of practicality rather than anything particularly profound. The Wikipaedia article is quite brief. Does liberal nationalism really not have much to say beyond describing the relationship between people and the state?

[Daktoria]

To be clear, it's not really liberal nationalism so much as civic nationalism. The only liberals in a liberal nationalist group are idealists who get taken advantage of.

The real advantage of civic (or "weak" as I prefer to call it) nationalism is it allows you to associate with many types of people purely based on the fact that you live near each other RIGHT NOW. The history of how you came together doesn't necessarily have much if any common ground, so you start building a nation in the present, and you build your own pragmatic traditions from that.

----------

Distributism is grounded in religion because you need aesthetics in order to convince practical people to live by the same values. Pragmatists are not deep thinkers, so in order to be convinced, they need signals which make them feel pleasant. Just tell them God exists and wants X, Y, Z, and they'll listen to you.

Without hypnotic aesthetics, it's very difficult to get pragmatists on your side because pragmatists are violent personalities, and by violent, I don't just mean hostile. I also mean they need to erect concrete change in order to be satisfied.

Yes, I agree that religion is an oddball path, but it's necessary when you're dealing with constructing the type of society you want.

[Melodramatic]

I found Dagoth Ur's arguments to be very persuasive, and to echo some of my own thought's.

I felt they were actually a bit self-contradictory. Claiming idologies are good and than claiming Marxism is a science...

It definitely makes sense in many ways to have an ideology - to make use of the ideas of other people, and to make use of the efforts of people who may have spent entire lifetimes considering particular ideas. Dagoth Ur is also correct to say that we all have an ideology - one formed from the ideas floating around us in the society in which we matured. So it only makes sense to recognise that, and to use it as a starting point.

People are stronger when working in groups with others, than they are when working alone

More so, community, which is derived from working with other's according to ideological beliefs, provides a necessarily tie between theory and reality. It is easy to think thoughts yourself, even post them on some internet forum, but it is another think entirely to live then and test them through the dialog (real dialog, not petty compromise that "the rich are bad" or such) that community provides. It is the duty of man to think, and test, verify and challenge his thoughts by dialog. It is what makes them real, from my experience.

even radically individualistic Libertarians and Anarchists like to associate with similarly minded people.

I disprove of that grouping

I believe most, anarchists (such as myself) are not "individualistic", so to speak.

The problem is - I don't fit in. When I do the political compass test, I come out as centre right, but socially very liberal. There aren't many famous people near my position. And whilst I often find allies on these boards for particular opinions I hold, I haven't noticed anyone with whom I'd agree across a wide range of topics.

One does not need to "fit in". One does not need to change himself to join some ideology, one is only to change himself if he believes such is right. What I can recommend is to familiarize yourself with schools of thought, possibly ask people in the forum to explain them to you. Ideologies are basically ideas, the way I see it, you need to see if you like them. Fascism, for example, seems to vary on many extents but what seems to hold it together is the thought that society is to be run hierarchically (or some prettier wording). That is an idea that I, for one, disagree with.

Communicating and checking your ideas with people face to face is also an important part, but using the internet for initial exposure seems like a good idea. If you do not mind I shall present my perceptive in relation to your points. Seems a better method than writing random names and using Wikipedia to define yourself.

I am extremely distrustful of any concentration of power amongst a small number of people. This leads me not only to reject most authoritarian ideologies (communism, socialism, fascism), but also to reject Libertarianism (since Libertarians so often act as enablers for furthering corporate power).

Good start. I would also claim that Libertarianism is essentially no different in that regard from authoritarian ideologies. It simply replaces political hierarchy with economic hierarchy, but its the same in practice just different rulers.

I believe that individuals have a duty beyond themselves, and believe that inequality is currently too high within many Western societies (USA, Britain etc..) I'd support policies to reduce inequality, such as progressive taxation, support for education, and strong inheritance taxation.

Again, good, but I would ask, why is inequality too high? Why is there inequality at all? do we want inequality?

I believe that global warming is currently the most serious problem that the world faces.

And I would ask why is it not fixed than? to the extent logically possible. What are the factors that prevent a solution to the problem be found?

However I recognise that capitalism can work very effectively on the small scale, and that free market competition can often be a good thing.

I must disagree on that point, but first I must ask why? what is the difference between the scales? for that matter why do you oppose capitalism at the large scale?

I see Anarchism as hopelessly utopian. I can't understand how any sort of Anarchist system would adequately be able to organise a modern industrial society to the extent that stuff gets done, and if anarchism was introduced into a society such as modern Britain (where I live), with it's high population density and strong reliance on trade, then the result would be economic collapse and starvation.

Than I do not believe you understand anarchism. People like to adopt a specific understanding, usually not one backed up by dialog, and use that as their straw-man or ideological stereotype. This is impossible, as ideologies are not mare sets of laws, but a more general idea.

I believe in measures being taken to stop concentrations of power in any one place within private industry. I'm a little weak on what exactly these measures might be, but they could go so far as to place limits on the size of companies (perhaps something along the lines of "any company with more than 500 employees must be run as a co-operative"). Very large companies run by a small number of individuals currently enjoy far too much influence over our culture, and corrupt our political system (cf Murdoch, but also many others more subtle).

That is once more focusing on the "what". I believe that the path to political consciousnesses requires understanding of "why". Common sense observation show us the dangers of large corporation, but what is it with corporations that makes them dangerous? Their size? Are they bad only when they endanger us? Seems like an unnecessary compromise.

Democracy is problematic, as can be seen by the poor quality of much popular political discourse (although discourse on these boards is sometimes pretty good), but I haven't thought of anything better. Perhaps it could be tweaked in some fashion. I definitely see the "first-past-the-post" system as used in the UK and US as a failure, since it's far too prone to corruption by modern electioneering methods. Direct democracy is a foolish idea, and I'd view it's supporters as shallow idealists.

I would have to ask whether you would support a wrong democracy or right dictatorship. I am not absolutist on the issue (although I am very close), but I would claim that, while the people may be wrong, the only way for society to work and be fair is if it is ruled by the people. Would you support a nation of people who give up their basic political freedom for the sake of any claim of utility? I would claim there is no way for such to be right, on the long term.

just as a socialist may want to travel in the direction of greater Marxism, without necessarily reaching communism

That would be the quest for "ideological purity". I would claim that is rubbish. Marxism cannot really exist without communism. It is an idea (or a set of) and while it may vary on policy (such as "when"s) communism is a central part of it.

[Social_Critic]

I don't see why global warming is seen as such a big problem. A little bit of sea level rise isn't such a big deal. I see the energy crisis as a much bigger problem - we are running out of oil.

[cathartic moment]

I've been thinking a little more about Distributionism. There's absolutely no way I can support it in the "pure" form presented within Wikipaedia. If society is entirely atomised on an economic level, then this will leave the remaining organisations in which people group together (such as the Catholic Church) with a tremendous amount of power.

I guess my view is that there needs to be a "balance of power" within society in order to allow ideas to emerge and be properly debated. Currently we are out of balance and corporations such as banks have too much power. But replacing one imbalance with another is not a solution.

Distributism is grounded in religion because you need aesthetics in order to convince practical people to live by the same values. Pragmatists are not deep thinkers, so in order to be convinced, they need signals which make them feel pleasant. Just tell them God exists and wants X, Y, Z, and they'll listen to you.

My priority at the moment is to consider my own beliefs. I'll worry about how to convince others later.

However I'll consider what you've said. There's probably some truth in it.

Yes, I agree that religion is an oddball path, but it's necessary when you're dealing with constructing the type of society you want.

If a society was constructed by the Catholic Church, then it would be unlikely to be the type of society I'd want.

One does not need to "fit in". One does not need to change himself to join some ideology, one is only to change himself if he believes such is right. What I can recommend is to familiarize yourself with schools of thought, possibly ask people in the forum to explain them to you. Ideologies are basically ideas, the way I see it, you need to see if you like them.

I'd agree. I've never been a person who's gone out of his way to "fit in". However I'd kick myself if, in 10 years time, I discovered that there was some group who were thinking along the same lines as me, and with whom I could have worked, if only I'd have made the effort to find out about them.

I felt they were actually a bit self-contradictory. Claiming idologies are good and than claiming Marxism is a science...

Claiming marxism is a science is a fairly standard communist position. Dagoth was not particularly original in this regard, and my eyes tended to pass over it and concentrate on the things he said that were more relevant to the debate.

Again, good, but I would ask, why is inequality too high? Why is there inequality at all? do we want inequality?

Those are all incredibly broard questions. I could write an essay about each one.

There are lots of reasons for inequality. Many are wealthy or poor due to inheritance. Some naturally have gifts that make them better able to seek rewards in our society. Some are just lucky. Some prosper by being immoral, or for a myriad of other reasons. It's also true that those who start with a small advantage in life tend to rewrite the rules of society in order to magnify their advantages.

I'm happy for a certain amount of inequality. An improvement in living standards is an incentive for many people that encourages them to contribute to society (i.e. to work). However beyond a certain point, an individual meets a point where his immediate needs are more than adequately taken care of, and money starts becoming a tool for control of other people rather than merely for helping oneself. And that's where the problems start creeping in. I'm happy for someone who works hard and contributes well to eat out at fine restaraunts. But not for a person to have so much that he can use his wealth to alter the course of nations.

I guess also my thinking is influenced by reading the book "The Spirit Level", and the large amount of evidence it presented regarding the correlation between inequality and various social problems (e.g. crime levels, or teenage pregnancy rates). Societies are simply healthier if they don't allow inequality to be too high.

I believe, for example, that the USA would be a much stronger nation if it could return to the levels of equality present during the 1950s, rather than the inequality it suffers from today.

I believe that global warming is currently the most serious problem that the world faces.

And I would ask why is it not fixed than? to the extent logically possible. What are the factors that prevent a solution to the problem be found?

That's another very difficult question to answer in a short response. However I believe there is a grain of truth to the claims from the right that any country that invests too heavily in looking for alternative strategies is likely to be at a competitive disadvantage.

The rightists would then argue that this means no country should pursue this path. I'd respond that we have to continue due to the high stakes involved, and for reasons of morality. And then, steps should be taken to stop all our country's wealth immediately disappearing oversees to environments the capitalists may see as more "competitive". Businesses, due to their very nature, tend to think in the short term. They plan for next years balance sheet, and perhaps for the year after that. But we shouldn't run countries by the same rules.

However I recognise that capitalism can work very effectively on the small scale, and that free market competition can often be a good thing.

I must disagree on that point, but first I must ask why?

For example if in one area there is a large number of restaurants, and they are all competing to attract the best chefs and to convince customers that they cook the best food, then the quality of food in that area is likely to be a lot better than another place where there are a similar number of state sponsored workers canteens.

Capitalism acts as a force for allowing people to express choice, and this multiplication of choice, and attempts to satisfy it, over many different instances serves to create an improvement. I believe this is the meaning of Smith's "Invisible hand".

what is the difference between the scales? for that matter why do you oppose capitalism at the large scale?

Because when capitalism becomes too powerful, it corrupts society. One could argue about the exact limits. But it's effects can clearly be seen today - for example, to remain on the subject of food, one could look at the way the food industry has attempted to subvert any attempts to enforce clear labelling of the nutritional content of food (for example by a "traffic light" system).

I work as a computer programmer. I can readily see how my industry is heavily corrupted by the way the software patent system is abused by large industry players. That's another thing I could write an essay about - properly explaining it would go way off topic. Suffice to say that the vast majority of people in the industry agree that there is a serious problem, but government does nothing due to lobbying by large companies.

Than I do not believe you understand anarchism. People like to adopt a specific understanding, usually not one backed up by dialog, and use that as their straw-man or ideological stereotype. This is impossible, as ideologies are not mare sets of laws, but a more general idea.

That's difficult to say. I understand that in some ways the concept of anarchism is somewhat slippery - there are many different types of anarchism. I've also read a reasonable amount of material written by anarchists, although not necessarily including a great deal of theoretical debate (these include several anarchist friendly novels such as "The dispossessed", some Noam Chomsky, and a bunch of issues of Green Anarchist magazine).

I suspect I'm more informed about anarchism than the average "man in the street", but there's still a great deal I don't know, and I don't really know where you're coming from.

The impression I get is that anarchism can work very well at organising on the small scale. But I can't currently see how it can properly organize larger scale activities, such as those that involve tens of thousands of people working together over extended periods of time. So I can see it working well where such widescale activities aren't necessary for survival. But that's not the society I personally currently live within.

That is once more focusing on the "what". I believe that the path to political consciousnesses requires understanding of "why". Common sense observation show us the dangers of large corporation, but what is it with corporations that makes them dangerous? Their size? Are they bad only when they endanger us? Seems like an unnecessary compromise.

That's another complex question. Again it is hard to answer within the confines of this board.

But I'd say this partly comes down to the old aphorism "power courrputs". Once too much power is placed within the hands of a small number of individuals, then these people will gain the ability to rewrite the rules of society (laws etc.) to further their aims and gain even more power. Examples can be seen in the way that the banking industry lobbied politically for a system that was highly favourable to themselves - a system that eventually led to the recent financial crisis. And by the time the crisis had occurred they had so much power over society, that bank failure became unthinkable.

I would have to ask whether you would support a wrong democracy or right dictatorship. I am not absolutist on the issue (although I am very close), but I would claim that, while the people may be wrong, the only way for society to work and be fair is if it is ruled by the people. Would you support a nation of people who give up their basic political freedom for the sake of any claim of utility? I would claim there is no way for such to be right, on the long term.

I can't think of a single historical example of anything I'd consider to be a "right dictatorship" in any sense, so in practical purposes, such a question would be very unlikely to arise.

Since many of my objectives are to avoid the corruption caused by a concentration of power within a small group, I'd see anything resembling a dictatorship as highly suspicious. I'd far rather concentrate on "tweaks" to our democratic system in order to fix it's flaws.

I don't see why global warming is seen as such a big problem... I see the energy crisis as a much bigger problem - we are running out of oil.

Running out of oil is another major problem. It's quite possible that global warming may hit us hardest at the same time oil supply levels become critical. These disasters combined could be devastating.

However in both cases the remedy is similar - moving towards greater use of alternative energy sources.

A little bit of sea level rise isn't such a big deal.

I currently live in a port city of an island nation. So yes - it is to me. And it wouldn't take a large rise in sea level to make a huge portion of the homes of my nation (and many other nations) uninhabitable. Think of the New Orleans disaster, and then think of the same happening accross each of the world's ports, and to towns along many of the world's rivers.

There would also be considerably more effects than just a sea level change. For example the effects on agriculture could be very severe, particularly for those living in areas that are already exteremly hot (e.g. what would a temperature rise of a few degrees do to those living in the Middle East and North Africa.)

[Melodramatic]

Claiming marxism is a science is a fairly standard communist position.

Of course, but I find pairsing ideology and than claiming to follow a science seems a bit hypocritical.

Those are all incredibly broard questions. I could write an essay about each one.

I am aware of that, such is intentional.

I'm happy for a certain amount of inequality. An improvement in living standards is an incentive for many people that encourages them to contribute to society (i.e. to work).

So you prefer people to suffer inequality so they will have "incentive" to get ahead in life? It seems a bit objectionable for their end, being told to suffer unfair pay so they can struggle to get what they deserve. Might I claim that in a civil society, one that cares for its members, we should not "sacrifice" ourselves nor our brothers for the sake of claims of utility and rather find a right way to do it? If taken seriously your claim even defeats charity, as it would lower the incentive.

The rightists would then argue that this means no country should pursue this path. I'd respond that we have to continue due to the high stakes involved, and for reasons of morality. And then, steps should be taken to stop all our country's wealth immediately disappearing oversees to environments the capitalists may see as more "competitive". Businesses, due to their very nature, tend to think in the short term. They plan for next years balance sheet, and perhaps for the year after that. But we shouldn't run countries by the same rules.

That makes sense superficially, but might I argue that there might be sides who benefit from a lack of government solution? It is no secret that the holders of capital have a strong influence on politics.

For example if in one area there is a large number of restaurants, and they are all competing to attract the best chefs and to convince customers that they cook the best food, then the quality of food in that area is likely to be a lot better than another place where there are a similar number of state sponsored workers canteens.

Firstly this is based on a false presumption. The goal of private restaurants is not to give a quality service, it is to maximize profits. But my objection is not primarily with competition, I shall explain below.

I've also read a reasonable amount of material written by anarchists, although not necessarily including a great deal of theoretical debate (these include several anarchist friendly novels such as "The dispossessed", some Noam Chomsky, and a bunch of issues of Green Anarchist magazine).

Okay, so I get you are indeed relativity read on the subject.

The impression I get is that anarchism can work very well at organising on the small scale. But I can't currently see how it can properly organize larger scale activities, such as those that involve tens of thousands of people working together over extended periods of time. So I can see it working well where such widescale activities aren't necessary for survival. But that's not the society I personally currently live within.

From this I guess the main sources you've read were Anarcho-communist. Money-less societies and such. Those are indeed harder to accept as they require changes to some of the most basic parts of society (I would argue much of it already exists), such as replacing the profit motive with communal loyalty (or human solidarity, or other fun things).

A simpler idea to understand is anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-collectivism. If needing to describe the idea of anarchism I usually describe the anarchist socialization of the mode of production. Lets say that, in order to explain my point, the economy is centered around factories. I'm such a factory there are workers and there are owners. Lets give the capitalists some undue credit and claim these owners take a central part in managing and organizing the factory. In this capitalist factory there is an hierarchy. The income made by the factory is given to the owners, who than pay the workers their wages. Now lets assume that there is a certain wage that in terms of mare contribution to the production process would be fair to give workers (or each individual workers). I shall claim that the capitalist owner will never give the worker that amount.

In order for the owner to profit, his income must be higher than his effort (his contribution to production), and he must therefore take it from the workers. So why do the workers stay? What power would the owner have over him? He owns the factory. In a hierarchical factory, the title of ownership given to the owner by society, can and, logically, will be used to coerce the workers to stay even when given less than they deserve. That is called exploitation. I shall claim that this hurts the workers, which are damned to live in the mercy of the owners, and society and that society is to relinquish such titles. Society is not to let capitalists exploit workers, but rather I want it to establish worker democracies (or rather let worker democracies establish themselves).

In a worker democracy, all things will be democratically decided by the workers. The logical reaction would be, "but how will so many workers run a factory efficiently?" The same way we run countries efficiently. They can choose a representatives that will serve as managers and such. But how is that so different than the capitalist system? The old owners were also contributing (right...). Well it was splendid that they were contributing, and if they were so important I'm sure the workers will decide to give them (or similar other's) their jobs. but this time it will be under the supervision of the workers, and the workers will decide who, what and how much he will be payed.

Effectively the idea is to return economic power to the people. In many senses, the different states of the mode of production are equitable to systems of political process. The arguments for and against the anarchist solutions are the same as the for and against democracy, and the arguments for and against capitalism are the same as fascism (fascists, in turn, favor this system for similar reason they favor the political system).

I would claim that ending economic fascism is also a central part of general democracy. Democracy does not just mean "everybody votes". It means the rule of the people. I would ask how much do the people truly rule themselvs, if the economic system takes power away from the majority? Anyone with eyes can see how that does not work. Ending economic fascism will put the economic power back with the people and make it their choice again. And that is what anarchism is about.

That would be the first essential step towards collective unity (although I would argue that a degree of collective unity is required for that to be achieved), towards the society described by the anarcho-communists. And that is my ideology, my idea. Hope you consider it seriously.

[cathartic moment]

So you prefer people to suffer inequality so they will have "incentive" to get ahead in life? It seems a bit objectionable for their end, being told to suffer unfair pay so they can struggle to get what they deserve. Might I claim that in a civil society, one that cares for its members, we should not "sacrifice" ourselves nor our brothers for the sake of claims of utility and rather find a right way to do it?

I couldn't care less what is "fair". Different people use very different definitions of that term.

What I'd care about is creating a society that works - where people can live happy and economically productive lives.

If taken seriously your claim even defeats charity, as it would lower the incentive.

As in many aspects of life, a balanced view is preferable. Yes, I believe giving people an incentive is helpful. But no of course I wouldn't stand by and watch someone starve.

That makes sense superficially, but might I argue that there might be sides who benefit from a lack of government solution? It is no secret that the holders of capital have a strong influence on politics.

Of course they do. They represent the established system, and always present the easier path.

However at some point, if we are to avoid having our countries completely implode, we must find another path.

Firstly this is based on a false presumption. The goal of private restaurants is not to give a quality service, it is to maximize profits. But my objection is not primarily with competition, I shall explain below.

The goal of any large company is to maximise profits. I'm not sure that generalisation always holds when applied to individual small companies. There are still people in this world who take pleasure in a job well done.

Regardless, I don't really care whether or not they make profits, as long as they serve good food for reasonable prices!

Okay, so I get you are indeed relativity read on the subject.

You're being generous.

A simpler idea to understand is anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-collectivism. If needing to describe the idea of anarchism I usually describe the anarchist socialization of the mode of production. Lets say that, in order to explain my point, the economy is centered around factories. I'm such a factory there are workers and there are owners. Lets give the capitalists some undue credit and claim these owners take a central part in managing and organizing the factory. In this capitalist factory there is an hierarchy. The income made by the factory is given to the owners, who than pay the workers their wages. Now lets assume that there is a certain wage that in terms of mare contribution to the production process would be fair to give workers (or each individual workers). I shall claim that the capitalist owner will never give the worker that amount.

In order for the owner to profit, his income must be higher than his effort (his contribution to production), and he must therefore take it from the workers. So why do the workers stay? What power would the owner have over him? He owns the factory. In a hierarchical factory, the title of ownership given to the owner by society, can and, logically, will be used to coerce the workers to stay even when given less than they deserve. That is called exploitation. I shall claim that this hurts the workers, which are damned to live in the mercy of the owners, and society and that society is to relinquish such titles. Society is not to let capitalists exploit workers, but rather I want it to establish worker democracies (or rather let worker democracies establish themselves).

I support strong inheritance taxes in order to reduce social inequality. If these were implemented, then the only way that people could own a factory would be if they had made some a strong contribution to society themselves at some point. They would have then used that contribution to build a large factory that gave employment to many people. I don't necessarily agree that this means they shouldn't be rewarded.

For example - what if this owner that you are complaining about is a retirement fund? And that the money that is being taken from these workers is being used to provide the fund's investors (i.e. old people) with nursing care during their retirement. Would you see that as morally wrong?

In a worker democracy, all things will be democratically decided by the workers. The logical reaction would be, "but how will so many workers run a factory efficiently?" The same way we run countries efficiently. They can choose a representatives that will serve as managers and such. But how is that so different than the capitalist system? The old owners were also contributing (right...). Well it was splendid that they were contributing, and if they were so important I'm sure the workers will decide to give them (or similar other's) their jobs. but this time it will be under the supervision of the workers, and the workers will decide who, what and how much he will be payed.

My country, Britain is one of the places where the co-operative movement started. As far as I can tell, the movement was built, in a practical fashion, upon many of the ideals that you espouse. In it's early days, co-operatives were run in a very democratic fashion, with decisions made by ballot and everyone paid equally.

However, the modern co-operative movement isn't remotely like that. Whilst elections are still held to elect a board, and dividends are still paid to members, in many ways co-operatives are run just like normal companies. They have a hierarchy with leaders and followers. Those at the top of the hierarchy are paid considerably more than those at the bottom. So I ask you - why did the co-operative movement change? Why did they abandon your ideals? Whilst I'm not an expert in the movement, I get the strong impression that they changed was because the early ideals didn't work. They weren't competitive. Using democratic leadership, and equal pay, they were simply unable to provide the products their customers wanted at prices their customers could afford. And that was despite having a sizable ideological advantage over their competitors (e.g. many workers preferentially used co-operatives out of support for the Labour movement.)

I have some questions for you:

Suppose, in your society, one individual managed to acquire more money than average (perhaps because the workers had earlier agreed that he was worth more, or perhaps he is just an older worker with savings). Suppose further that this worker turns round to his colleagues and says if you do what I say, then I will pay you more money, and effectively offers his fellow workers a job under new terms, then how would you prevent that from happening. How would an anarchic society implement rules that stop capitalism from spontaneously breaking out?

I'm aware that communist Russia faced a similar problem with capitalism spontaneously breaking out amongst the peasantry. Stalin dealt with the problem by killing or imprisoning the richer peasants (Kulaks). What would you do?

Also, under your system, how would new factories be built? Where would the capital come from? Who would decide issues such as what kind of factory it would be, and how large it would be? Would every issue have to be voted on, and who exactly would be eligible to vote? Would the entire town/country/state have to be polled on a myriad of details every time a new factory/school/hospital/supermarket is built?

And lastly, who decides the question "who is a worker" in your factory. If a new guy turns up and says "I want to work here" then who decides if he joins? Would it be the existing workers? Wouldn't that create a power relationship, and wouldn't, in some cases, the existing workers use that power to impose further hierarchy (e.g. "you can join, but you will only have the apprentice rank for the first three years, which means you only get half wages and no vote. If you don't like it then go join some other factory" - in which case isn't the new worker potentially being exploited?). Where-ever there is power, clever people will find ways to manipulate it.

[Melodramatic]

I couldn't care less what is "fair".

Than you shouldn't be surprised when people protest against you. Or when people who do care about the other's in their society join to help them. There is no logical reason for unfiarness to be good, and bad stuff is usually bad

Different people use very different definitions of that term.

In what way is that a reason to abandon the concept? I would view that as a reason to strengthen the definition you deem correct.

What I'd care about is creating a society that works - where people can live happy and economically productive lives.

I'd claim an unfair society can't "work". There is no real difference between an exploited people who get a slightly bigger slice of the cake, they are still exploited people. The claim one does not care about what is right and "just trying to make things work" is ignorant to the wrong things in society that will hurt in on the long-term. The true meaning of ideology is reaching to ideals, understanding the mechanisms and trying to make society work right and logically, not just "not very, very bad". The latter is what we are taught to trust in (everything else is "dreaming"). We are told that we can't do much, and we readily believe, forgoing any real perceptive of society and losing any perspective we could of had at all. We blindly roll around trying to piss a bit on the flames, while the world burns.

It is our intellectual duty to understand the world around us. Ideologies are ideas who attempt to offer understanding not just groupings. Stumbling on to a melting glacier is easy, it requires little commitment, both intellectual and personal, and little questioning of our choking love of inaction and cynicism. It is even a nice conversation piece and intellectual "game". It can even be extended to an internet forum. Understanding the wider picture of the environment (if that's what interests you), and man's place in it, and there fore inevitably the power "pie" in society, is the real challenge and is required for real change.

As in many aspects of life, a balanced view is preferable. Yes, I believe giving people an incentive is helpful. But no of course I wouldn't stand by and watch someone starve.

That is a straw-man. You still readily abandon compassion and prevent people of what you deem "balanced" for the sake of economical incentive. I say bullshit. We are to help our fellow men to whatever extent we can, no matter what we are taught is "necessary". Withholding a car is not really different than withholding food, it creates division and class and breaks the solidarity of mankind (which is a cycle, as that is the excuse for not helping).

Still, this is not the argument I was aiming for.

The goal of any large company is to maximise profits. I'm not sure that generalisation always holds when applied to individual small companies. There are still people in this world who take pleasure in a job well done.

I agree, of course. That is collective thought in the working. I'd dare to say that their incentive is not economical at all, they would have wanted to do so even if they had everything they wanted.

Regardless, I don't really care whether or not they make profits, as long as they serve good food for reasonable prices!

You should care. Profits do not come form thin air, they come from either the customer (which is negligible) or (more commonly) the worker.

They would have then used that contribution to build a large factory that gave employment to many people. I don't necessarily agree that this means they shouldn't be rewarded.

Their contribution should be rewarded, but it should be done using democracy. The workers should acknowledge their effort. Of course unless the factory was built by that person himself, such money will usually only come from owner profit.

But my argument stands. You have not changed the fascist nature of the system, just the requirement for getting to the top. You will still have dictatorially lead economic system, in which the workers will have to be utterly subjected to the top, and have no ability to determine whether the system works positively or fairly except trusting the top because they are "good people" or, worse, deeming it their reward to be able to exploit. You will preserve a system in which the majority is not rewarded by their effort, but the mercy of their "betters". I would claim that any inheritance law will not be able to make any real change with a nation of sheep. Reforming such a system is impossible, it needs change.

For example - what if this owner that you are complaining about is a retirement fund? And that the money that is being taken from these workers is being used to provide the fund's investors (i.e. old people) with nursing care during their retirement. Would you see that as morally wrong?

No, of course not. It makes sense that the worker is to receive a part of the income in retirement, or alliteratively help form the collective. I am objecting to the hierarchy, not the money.

So I ask you - why did the co-operative movement change? Why did they abandon your ideals?

I would claim it is part of a larger social process that killed most working class unity. It is not enough to have democracy, one needs to want it and demand it. Just as all others, these worker can be persuaded hierarchy is good. Look at how many nations were persuaded fascism is good(as well as other totalitarians). Out of curiosity, did they indeed still have democracy?

They weren't competitive.

Why?

Using democratic leadership, and equal pay, they were simply unable to provide the products their customers wanted at prices their customers could afford.

Why?

How would an anarchic society implement rules that stop capitalism from spontaneously breaking out?

The best tool is education (both the workers and person in this case). But worse comes to worse he have his property given to the workers, therefore taking away his main advantage. They would have to demand it, though (so theoretically small scale capitalism could exist). In general I would deem market societies weaker than collectivized ones (in which people are motivated to aid the collective rather than gather money), but a necessary step towards them. Still, I would also claim the two forms of society are firmly connected, and than for the former to exist the latter must already be underway.

Also, under your system, how would new factories be built?

I suppose using collective funds of the workers (and/or society), which should be enough in an industrialized (socialized) society, and than by collective building companies.

Would every issue have to be voted on, and who exactly would be eligible to vote?

Depends on who's building it, I suppose. Also as claimed, while it should be the basis from which the demcoratic process grows, direct democracy is not requirement for a non-hierarchical society.

Wouldn't that create a power relationship, and wouldn't, in some cases, the existing workers use that power to impose further hierarchy (e.g. "you can join, but you will only have the apprentice rank for the first three years, which means you only get half wages and no vote. If you don't like it then go join some other factory" - in which case isn't the new worker potentially being exploited?). Where-ever there is power, clever people will find ways to manipulate it.

While, as said, this is not a blemish-less system, I would claim that not letting a worker vote is hierarchy, and should be fixed as any case of hierarchy.

...........................................

As claimed this is not a perfect system (one is free to improve upon it), but the notion that the workers are exploited and rather than using hierarchy to solve it, it should be solved directly using the workers themselves is a positive one, and an important one I believe. The key is to understand that this is our (the people) society, that we are the one's that need decide its fate rather than some corporation. That implies that concepts such as property rights (within the context stated) are also society's (and not the other way around), and not some the sacred behemoth we were told we "can't live without", alongside greed, misery, inequality and exploitation. We are taught all our lives that these are "parts of nature", and in a dangerously relativist sentiment that "sometimes bad things are also good" . I say bullshit. We are thinking people, living in a world we created. This is our time to triumph the bindings of the past and find out what is good, how things are to be done and how they are to be done right. No compromises. We are to be as radical, wild and "out there" as we can in theory, and as pragmatic as needed to make it real (rather than just talk) in reality. We shall think and shape our reality, together in dialog rather than slogans, for such is our duty.

Or we shall be forever sheep.

[cathartic moment]

Than you shouldn't be surprised when people protest against you. Or when people who do care about the other's in their society join to help them. There is no logical reason for unfiarness to be good, and bad stuff is usually bad

I wouldn't at all be surprised if people protested against me. That's just part of the price of living in a free society.

My view is that there is no inherent concept of "fairness" in the natural world.

A communist may say that it's fair that all men should receive equal rewards.

A libertarian may say that it's fair that men should be paid as much as they can justify their economic worth to employers.

Can you prove that either position is wrong from first principles? Of course not, because the only difference between the two positions is that each is using an entirely different meaning of the word "fair". You can't "prove" definitions of words.

All "fair" really means is "this is the way I think things should be and I shall call this way 'fair'". So everyone uses this term slightly differently, and whilst people use it as a justification for their arguments, it really isn't any sort of justifcation at all. At best it's a summation of a whole load of unspoken assumptions, at worst a post justification for greed.

Nothing can be completely fair, because "fair" doesn't have a universal definition. When dealing with abstract relations between people with different value systems the term harms more than it helps.

And that cuts to the heart of the difference between us - we are reasoning based on very different value systems.

You take your concept of fairness and place it above everything else. You design a society to satisfy that concept.

I couldn't care less about fairness. It's meaningless to me. My aim would be a society that is stable. One that can prosper without imploding in economic collapse or revolution. One that can continue to exist in the modern competitive world, and still function without destroying the planet on which it sits. I want to create a society that will still be here in a hundred years time.

Our goals are completely different. It's not surprising we're coming up with different results.

Maybe the sort of nation I would create would be closer to your ideals than our current society (because capitalism will be weakened and co-operatives may play a greater role). In that you see us as having common ground. But that doesn't mean that we want the same things.

I'd suspect you believe the anarchic society you discuss would be stable. Personally I seriously doubt it. But again that difference in opinion tracks back to quite different underlying assumptions. We have a different view of human beings - of what motivates them and inspires them. Of how they behave under various conditions. Your system assumes a certain level of altruism and community spirit in which I simply don't believe.

You assume people will act in a certain way in your society, but you haven't mentioned a single method in order to force them to behave that way. Instead you reject the very concept of coercion, without (in my opinion) realising how coercive your society would have to be to work in the face of the variety of human desires and the depth of the greed and selfishness of (some) humans.

Compared to your anarchic ideals, my goal is much closer to the society we currently live in. So it's much easier for me to test my assumptions against the real world.

I don't doubt that my goals, if implemented, would fall short of perfection. I merely believe the resulting society would be better than the one we currently live in. That's all I want. Once it's achieved then my work is done - because if I'm right and it truely is a better society, then I wouldn't see it as being a static thing. It could keep changing. The citizens of this better society will be better placed to decide what they want, and how to progress than either of us. Perhaps after many generations they will reach your ideals. I don't know. It should be their choice, not ours.

[ralfy]

Given its nature, capitalism cannot operate on a small scale.

[cathartic moment]

Given its nature, capitalism cannot operate on a small scale.

Why? Hasn't it operated on a small scale, throughout much of Eurasia, for the last several thousand years - regardless of whether the system of government at the time was Monarchy, Feudalism, Democracy or Communism?

[Melodramatic]

I wouldn't at all be surprised if people protested against me. That's just part of the price of living in a free society.

Good, and seeing as their protests are logical, they will either need be enslaved and suppressed or they will eventually bring you down ("you" is a representative of your views). Problem solved, next.

My view is that there is no inherent concept of "fairness" in the natural world.

Well I'd claim there might be. We just can't perceive it, or interact with it in anyway, as we are limited to subjective perceptions. That is also true for just about everything else. Not any less of a reason to try and build our own conception of it, subjectivity does not make it irrelevant it makes it subjective (surprisingly).

A communist may say that it's fair that all men should receive equal rewards.

Being correct.

A libertarian may say that it's fair that men should be paid as much as they can justify their economic worth to employers.

Being incorrect.

Can you prove that either position is wrong from first principles?

Yes, the libertarian is incorrect. It creates an a situation that inevitably leads to a person to profit, therefore receiving more than he contributed.

Of course not, because the only difference between the two positions is that each is using an entirely different meaning of the word "fair".

The only difference? that quite a difference. The underlying difference is what they deem fair. Libertarianism effectively claims it is fair to do whatever you want as long as you don't break a certain set of rules (such as non-violence), and given a certain set of circumstances (such as a level of taxation). I disagree, for the reason above, among others.

All "fair" really means is "this is the way I think things should be and I shall call this way 'fair'".

I'd say that is incorrect. That would possibly be the definition for "right". Fair has a certain meaning beyond that (killing rabbits or cheating on your wife cannot be described as unfair, it is wrong). In both cases I would think it completely legitimate for people to decide what they deem fair and what they deem right, and believe it is my responsibility to convince them they are horribly wrong (for the rabbits' sake).

Nothing can be completely fair, because "fair" doesn't have a universal definition.

Depends how you define completely... people usually define it as very very much in that context, and things can be very very fair.

Also nothing really has a universal definition. and I once more don't see how that is relevant.

You take your concept of fairness and place it above everything else. You design a society to satisfy that concept.

I wouldn't say its only that. Morality also has a factor, and so does utility to an extent.

I couldn't care less about fairness. It's meaningless to me.

If so that is very sad. But I doubt that is so, we just tell ourselves that so we won't have to bother our selves with all the unfairness, and so the capitalists can sleep sound at night.

If everybody would get a 200$ grant from the state, except you, would you not protest? How about giving jobs only to white people? Is that cool with you? You can come up with an endless amount of rationalizations for your views, but in the end its all just bullshit. We believe in things that are right, and disbelieve in things that are wrong. We have just been conditioned to be dreadfully afraid of deciding such things by ourselves (not to mention deciding them toughener with others) to we rationalize with bullshit (that is in many cases true) and end up with a compromise.

My aim would be a society that is stable. One that can prosper without imploding in economic collapse or revolution. One that can continue to exist in the modern competitive world, and still function without destroying the planet on which it sits. I want to create a society that will still be here in a hundred years time.

Ah, the king of the bullshit rubber ideals. The things that everybody can agree about. Watering down your beliefs to an extent that they truly mean nothing.

Why understand society? why care about people, or hold on to any manner of humanity? lets be ultra-cool and cynical survivalists. After all, all those ideas and principles are just idealism, people can't change. Ass-raping our peers will always exist, and we should not interfere. We need to focus on things we know our right, we know everybody can agree on, and everybody likes, like surviving. Rule of the jungle man, that's all what's real.

Bullshit. We are taught to repress our beliefs, that we have no right to shout out and say "hey, that's wrong" and I claim that's bullshit. Rubber ideas are for sheep, and I want thinking people.

We have a different view of human beings - of what motivates them and inspires them. Of how they behave under various conditions.

Probably, and that is worth a discussion on its own end, but don't you fool yourself. I am not seeing man through some fucking rainbow goggles, I am not afraid of believing he can change. That he can grow. I do not view reality as something that fell upon us, but something we make. But hey, doing nothing is always the easiest solution and believing in nothing is quite a positive step in that direction.

Your system assumes a certain level of altruism and community spirit in which I simply don't believe.

I have implied no such thing, as said I have given purely the underlying economic system, not my real revolution.

That being said, I do believe that the human being is capable of becoming a being that can put the collective before himself. And as said that is worth a discussion on its own end.

You assume people will act in a certain way in your society, but you haven't mentioned a single method in order to force them to behave that way.

What are you talking about?

and why do we want to force people to act in any way?

Instead you reject the very concept of coercion

Where?

without (in my opinion) realising how coercive your society would have to be to work in the face of the variety of human desires and the depth of the greed and selfishness of (some) humans.

I have claimed it would not be perfect, due to the market nature of it, but it seems much better than any level of capitalism...

Compared to your anarchic ideals, my goal is much closer to the society we currently live in.

Correct.

So it's much easier for me to test my assumptions against the real world.

Having larger goal does not imply having smaller goals... and I mean to test my assumption at every point along the way, most importantly using dialog and applying my beliefs to the largest extent I am capable of.

That's all I want.

Why?

I don't know. It should be their choice, not ours.

Did I imply taking their choice away? Its not very fun when I am asked to answer arguments made against some imaginary Melodramatic-evil-twin.

[danholo]

Stop finding a brand to wear, and just be yourself. It's a tough path but it's better to be that then trap yourself into some ideology and force yourself to identify with people. People are stronger in groups, but so what? These groups are just weird communities that don't really have much in common but a facade. You'll have a better time speaking your own mind and just challenging yourself then joining some "colors". It's such a weird thing to do. Everything I believe in is against this. For example, all the members here who profess and advertise their "redness" is completely weird and odd to me. They have nothing themselves to believe in that they need to raise a flag of a dead Empire? They remind me of any religious crusader. I call it "idol-worship".

I think Melo is on the right track, so listen to him if my words are unworthy. Anarchism! (Isn't that a color too?)

[ralfy]

Why? Hasn't it operated on a small scale, throughout much of Eurasia, for the last several thousand years - regardless of whether the system of government at the time was Monarchy, Feudalism, Democracy or Communism?

It operated on a small scale because the technology available did not allow it to grow. With the use of coal, and then oil.....

[cathartic moment]

Good, and seeing as their protests are logical, they will either need be enslaved and suppressed or they will eventually bring you down ("you" is a representative of your views). Problem solved, next.

I've studied formal logic. I know what it is, and it has very little to do with political systems. Stop abusing the word in order to lend your views false gravitas.

Well I'd claim there might be. We just can't perceive it, or interact with it in anyway, as we are limited to subjective perceptions. That is also true for just about everything else. Not any less of a reason to try and build our own conception of it, subjectivity does not make it irrelevant it makes it subjective (surprisingly).

Now you're descending into the mystical.

Can you prove that either position is wrong from first principles?

Yes, the libertarian is incorrect. It creates an a situation that inevitably leads to a person to profit, therefore receiving more than he contributed.

Those aren't first principles. Instead you're begging the question - you are assuming your own definition of fairness (i.e. that it is wrong for someone to receive more than he contributed) in your "solution".

Nothing can be completely fair, because "fair" doesn't have a universal definition.

Depends how you define completely... people usually define it as very very much in that context, and things can be very very fair.

I'd disagree - lets take an example. There are two farmers, and both plant their crops. In sixth months time, one farmer has a field full of potatoes, whilst the other farmer's crops fail completely.

I'd suspect that most people, given the above information, would say that it's fair for the first farmer to give a good portion (many would say half) of his crops to the second - to help him survive until next year when the luck may be reversed.

However, suppose further information is given. Perhaps people are then told that the first farmer's crops succeeded because he spent 8 hours a day caring for them - making sure they were watered, removing weeds etc. Meanwhile the second farmer spent his entire summer sunbathing and drinking at the local tavern.

Now how much should the first farmer give to the second? Should he give anything at all? I'd suspect you'd receive a large variety of different answers from different people. As I said - there is no universal definition of fairness.

If everybody would get a 200$ grant from the state, except you, would you not protest?

Of course I would - just because I reject the concept of an absolute system of fairness, that doesn't mean that I've stopped caring about my own self interest. I'd also wonder about the reasons why I was left out. Have people got something against me? Should I fear future penalties?

How about giving jobs only to white people? Is that cool with you?

No it isn't because it would create instability.

Ah, the king of the bullshit rubber ideals. The things that everybody can agree about. Watering down your beliefs to an extent that they truly mean nothing.

Why understand society? why care about people, or hold on to any manner of humanity? lets be ultra-cool and cynical survivalists. After all, all those ideas and principles are just idealism, people can't change. Ass-raping our peers will always exist, and we should not interfere. We need to focus on things we know our right, we know everybody can agree on, and everybody likes, like surviving. Rule of the jungle man, that's all what's real.

Bullshit. We are taught to repress our beliefs, that we have no right to shout out and say "hey, that's wrong" and I claim that's bullshit. Rubber ideas are for sheep, and I want thinking people.

What a simplistic response.
I'd want to create a society that is considerably more egalitarian than we currently have, and here you're lumping me in with libertarian "rule of the jungle" types.
Instead I'd see my system as being far more moral than the anarchism you are proposing, simply because the anarchism you want won't work, and would lead to untold suffering in the course of it's failure.

What are you talking about? :?:

and why do we want to force people to act in any way?

If you cannot force people to act in accordance with your ideals, then how would you stop the spontaneous outbreak of pockets of capitalism within your society? How would you stop people who want, of their own accord, to enter into "employer/employee" relationships except by coercion? And once sufficient numbers of people have done so, hasn't your society returned to capitalism?

One of the advantages of capitalism is that it can work very well alongside other systems. For example, it's perfectly possible to start your own anarcho-communist collective within a capitalist state. All you have to do is persuade people to join it.

Did I imply taking their choice away? Its not very fun when I am asked to answer arguments made against some imaginary Melodramatic-evil-twin.

No you did not, and I didn't accuse you of it. Not everything is about you! The particular passage you replied to was merely descriptive of my views, and wasn't a direct response to any of your points.

It operated on a small scale because the technology available did not allow it to grow. With the use of coal, and then oil.....

My point was that history proves that it is perfectly possible for capitalism to exist on the small scale.

[ralfy]

My point was that history proves that it is perfectly possible for capitalism to exist on the small scale.

My point is that capitalism requires continuous growth, in which case a "small scale" should be temporary.

Put simply, in capitalism, the capital has to be reinvested in a business, which means production (and consumption) has to grow, esp. if competition is involved.

[cathartic moment]

Put simply, in capitalism, the capital has to be reinvested in a business, which means production (and consumption) has to grow, esp. if competition is involved.

I'm not formally trained in economics to any decent level, although I try to read what I can. Could you explain this to me slowly?

I believe I've heard your theory before. Would I be correct to say that this is a standard Marxist critique of capitalism? I never understood it.

I would agree that any firm that receives more capital must grow in order to justify the investment. However I don't understand the reasoning that this necessarily implies that the total size of the market should grow. As one company increases in size, another company could shrink (or fold entirely).

In order to justify the investment of capital, it seems to me that the requirement is not continuous growth, but continuous change, since any change can potentially result in greater profit (which would thus justify the investment). Such changes are not hard to come by - they are natural to the human condition (e.g. change occurs as each generation of youth reaches maturity).

Also, if continuous growth is a general requirement for capitalism, then how come capitalism still exists when it is so easy to point to episodes in history where growth has been anything but continuous (e.g. following depressions, warfare, or major disease outbreaks)?