Alright, while introducing myself to this topic, let's begin with admitting that I haven't read it all (even though I think I should). However, while reading the last few posts, I think this is a discussion of high quality, in which certain statements are, regrettably, less valid.
Grass, I'm afraid your definition of capitalism might be a bit off. The movie in the beginning of this thread mostly applies to the US, and maybe so does your definition of capitalism.
Regard that however you wish to. However, the following is something I'm quite sure about:
We should produce based on what we have and what we need, ...
'Capitalism' is not about creating money from debt. That's just the definition of money...
Also, I believe that the 'steady technological progress' that you mention is a direct consequence of the same capitalism you fight. Actually, you may not be aware of this, but 'technological progress', measured by the amount of patents filed per year and just about any other parameter you could think off has been declining for many years now. Personally, I think this is a consequence of the capitalism-avoiding (if I may put it that way) policy of many governments.
Capitalism doesn't work. Or would you call a system that only reaches the well-being of less than half of the people a success? I have truly analysed the principle of our monetary system myself and I can assure you, it's just a matter of time until it will collapse. Money can only be created out of debt and debt always creates interest that has to be paid back as well. So, the money to cover the interest that is charged really doesn't exist. The debts constantly grow because of the interest that can never be repaid, but this can't continue forever, the debts will grow to a point where the collapse is unevitable. There is no way to avoid this, as money cannot be created without creating debt.
The concept of 'money' (debt if you must, something that by itself has no value [you can't use it] but yet is accepted by everyone as valuable) has been around for quite a while now (over 26 centuries), and I would say that it has proven to work. What are you really trying to attack here, 'money', 'capitalism' or just the egoïstic human mindset?
I'm by no means arguing against socialism as a whole, but there are elements within some socialistic principles which are working directly against the principles of capitalism in a manner that doesn't make the system better, but rather stiffles it's natural evolution, while keeping it up.
Within the original context, this wasn't less ridiculous than it is without. Seriously, WTF?
If we only produced what we need, there would be no competition and thus no capitalism.
I don't understand this. We can't go back to every individual producing his own needs (obviously). If 'the society' produces what 'the society' needs, you will still need some sort of distributing system between individuals. I would say that competition and thus capitalism has thusfar proven itself better than other systems.
Capitalism is built on the idea that continuous growth is possible, ...
No it's not. It's based on this:
We should produce based on what we have and what we need, ...
Growth is not necessarily inherent to the capitalist system. Capitalism is merely based on a more individualistic point of view than, for example, communism.
Capitalism is a structure that we're all forced into. It has always been led by the ones on the top, as they are the ones with the most power. They indirectly decide how this system evolves.
Apart from the word 'indirectly', this doesn't resemble capitalism to me as much as it resembles other forms of economy...
This is actually one of very few occasions where I would like to bring into mind 'The American Dream' (as something positive).
These things I have pointed out are reasonings that I currently persieve as flaws in your logic. Regardless of them, I wish to applaud you three on the way you manage to have an intelligent discussion. I believe that this is what the Cavern was meant for.
