Could something like Cooperative Capitalism be a solution?

[PunkMaister]

I Googled for just such a thing and this is what I found under Cooperative Capitalism

Could this be a viable alternative to solve the current world economic crisis?


It sure sounds better than plunging the whole world into Marxism, Leninism or worse Sharia law...

[Narsil]

My personal opinion, from what I've read of it (which is not very much, admittedly)? This is a variation on several Marxist theories renamed so as not to offend the Americans out there. Especially in its rejection of the modern bourgeois capitalists as descended from aristocracy.

[PunkMaister]

My personal opinion, from what I've read of it (which is not very much, admittedly)? This is a variation on several Marxist theories renamed so as not to offend the Americans out there. Especially in its rejection of the modern bourgeois capitalists as descended from aristocracy.

Yeah it could be after looking at the caption in the Book's photo about the "Horrors brought on by Washinton!" Still taking all the marxist crap out and there's plenty to go. The idea of joining cooperativeness and capitalism could be a sound one.

[2046]

If cooperative capitalism is the solution, what is the problem?

The problem is not capitalism, since we do not have it and haven't for decades. Further, capitalism only breaks when the government muscles into the market and makes it self-defeating.

So, perhaps it would be better to ask if capitalism is the solution.

[Narsil]

Personally, I find that just reigning capitalism in via a socialist 'capitalism is the necessary evil' method. And to be quite honest, Marxism seems to me to be far preferable to having over ninety percent of the world's wealth in the hands of less than ten percent of the population, who all live comfortably in their McMansions with their boats, collection of cars, and obscene number of zeroes in their bank accounts. Meanwhile, the rest of us can barely afford to own our actual homes, never mind anything else.

[Narsil]

If cooperative capitalism is the solution, what is the problem?

The problem is not capitalism, since we do not have it and haven't for decades. Further, capitalism only breaks when the government muscles into the market and makes it self-defeating.

So, perhaps it would be better to ask if capitalism is the solution.

Unrestrained capitalism is more or less what got us into this mess. The constant profiteering of big, fat corporate businessmen who would like to increase the number of zeroes on the income scale and make themselves richer in the short run while not caring about the long run. This is the very primary problem of capitalism; the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, and ultimately everyone loses out because the banks take one too many risks with money that have short-term gains and long-term failures. To be quite honest, I'm very sick of the unequal distribution of wealth, the constant American-style imperialist capitalism that means that there are more McDonalds chain restaurants in the world than there are any local competitors, and that we are apparently the only ones to blame for how poor we are.

Fuck capitalism, because all capitalists seem to want lately is to say a nice and hearty 'fuck you' to future generations.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well, the theoretical and proved problem of capitalism is how it only lives for profit. Some balance has to be found to mix human rights in there.

The other problem is that changing the economical system on its own is not sufficient. It has to walk hand in hand with a complete overhaul of the international exchange system, including equity, respect and non-interference: No more messing around with third world countries and so on, for their resources, their energies, their food and so on, most of it having to do with a vision of the world that does not differ much from neocolonialism, for all the mediocre ideologies it had about other ethnics, cultures and religions.

That's not going to happen anytime soon, and my belief is that no matter the system you try, we're only going to see the worse of it.

[PunkMaister]

If cooperative capitalism is the solution, what is the problem?

The problem is not capitalism, since we do not have it and haven't for decades. Further, capitalism only breaks when the government muscles into the market and makes it self-defeating.

So, perhaps it would be better to ask if capitalism is the solution.

Unrestrained capitalism is more or less what got us into this mess. The constant profiteering of big, fat corporate businessmen who would like to increase the number of zeroes on the income scale and make themselves richer in the short run while not caring about the long run. This is the very primary problem of capitalism; the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, and ultimately everyone loses out because the banks take one too many risks with money that have short-term gains and long-term failures. To be quite honest, I'm very sick of the unequal distribution of wealth, the constant American-style imperialist capitalism that means that there are more McDonalds chain restaurants in the world than there are any local competitors, and that we are apparently the only ones to blame for how poor we are.

Fuck capitalism, because all capitalists seem to want lately is to say a nice and hearty 'fuck you' to future generations.

Let's be clear about something when is just an individual or a few individuals that control whole markets is no longer a vibrant capitalist system but an oligarchy and a monopoly. True capitalism needs competition to flourish without it it stagnates like a putrid pond literally.

The problem is that indeed there are whole markets just in the hands of the few and that virtually stomps out competition. Another problem is that a lot of companies decided to go overseas in look of ever cheaper labor without realizing that sooner or latter that labor would not be so cheap anymore as off course laborers would demand their rights and fair pay just as they did back in the US and Europe long ago. As we stand now most manufacturing jobs have been effectively moved out of the US so off course there is as a result less and less jobs out there and when the world economy took it's nosedive well you know the rest...

Ah and if you must know I'd much rather live as I live now where I can openly and enthusiastically criticize any government leader without fear of being sent to a freaking Gulag or worse which is what your preffered sociopolitical system inevitably leads too...

[ILikeDeathNote]

I can barely read the introduction because it's so convoluted - and likely intentionally so. This is the first and loudest warning sign of attempted intellectual dishonesty. But from what I can gather is that "cooperative capitalism" is just socialism re-labeled in an attempt to dupe capitalist supporters; an attempt so lazy and stupid only someone massively lazy and stupid in turn could honestly think it would work (I'm imagining someone who rarely ventures far from his parents' basement).

In other words Narsil is right, in his first post.

[PunkMaister]

I can barely read the introduction because it's so convoluted - and likely intentionally so. This is the first and loudest warning sign of attempted intellectual dishonesty. But from what I can gather is that "cooperative capitalism" is just socialism re-labeled in an attempt to dupe capitalist supporters; an attempt so lazy and stupid only someone massively lazy and stupid in turn could honestly think it would work (I'm imagining someone who rarely ventures far from his parents' basement).

In other words Narsil is right, in his first post.

I did not read much into it. I have always thought that some form of combination of Cooperativeness *Cooperatives) and Capitalism could work and I Googled to see if someone had a similar idea as it turns out the site I found now it turns out is all smoke and mirrors. But it does not preclude the fact that combining the best elements of socialism such as Cooperatives and Capitalism could potentially work. And cut down on the personal attacks so far this thread has been very civil so let's keep it that way...

[Narsil]

PunkMaister seems to be mixing up Stalinist Communism and genuine 'for the people and by the people' Socialism, which is rather telling as to his level of political knowledge. Quite a lot of Socialist systems actually have a very positive view of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as well as a far superior human rights record to Stalinism.

But of course, it's evil just because it's Socialism. I mean, universal health care, minimum wages, welfare systems to support the poor, a vast amount of civil rights and a recognition of equality is obviously evil. I mean, it's undemocratic and will take away our rights to... erm... what important and realistic rights are we taking away again by adopting Socialism? It's giving us all a right to health, a right to welfare, a right to civil liberties and a right to equality...


More seriously, I don't think combining Capitalism and Socialism is going to work unless the Capitalism is subservient to Socialism. Far too many of the world's problems are caused by unregulated economically liberal ideas. Odd, really, how the right-wing will only support 'liberal' if it means economic liberty.

[PunkMaister]

PunkMaister seems to be mixing up Stalinist Communism and genuine 'for the people and by the people' Socialism, which is rather telling as to his level of political knowledge. Quite a lot of Socialist systems actually have a very positive view of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as well as a far superior human rights record to Stalinism.

Name one, Oh wait you can't because there has never been such a thing ever implemented in the history of mankind...

But of course, it's evil just because it's Socialism. I mean, universal health care, minimum wages, welfare systems to support the poor, a vast amount of civil rights and a recognition of equality is obviously evil. I mean, it's undemocratic and will take away our rights to... erm... what important and realistic rights are we taking away again by adopting Socialism? It's giving us all a right to health, a right to welfare, a right to civil liberties and a right to equality...

What a load! The US already has minimum wages, welfare and so on and welfare what has created if anything is parasitism as people would much rather just sit in their welfare provided homes and make babies than to to actually go and work. Vast amount of civil rights? Yeah for the poor at the expense of the middle class which is to be sacrificed like lambs at the altar of your beloved Socialism. Over here we have socialized medicine and it has been nothing but a disaster and an ever more expensive pain in the arse. We use to have public hospitals now we do not because the government had to sell them in order to provide their social health plan and cards instead. So don't go talking to me about the benefits of socialism and let's not even go to the wonderful section 8 program that have turned all corners of the island into crime spots. Yeah socialism works and so does a hole in the head!

More seriously, I don't think combining Capitalism and Socialism is going to work unless the Capitalism is subservient to Socialism. Far too many of the world's problems are caused by unregulated economically liberal ideas. Odd, really, how the right-wing will only support 'liberal' if it means economic liberty.

Bull! Just one look at all the Socialist countries that have existed or exist turns that argument to shreds... You are probably one of the Bozzos that think that private enterprise does not generate jobs nor general revenue.

[Narsil]

Name one, Oh wait you can't because there has never been such a thing ever implemented in the history of mankind...

Except for the, oh, thirty-five years between the Second World War and the rise of Margaret Thatcher that Britain went through. Y'know, the one where most of society entered an economic 'consensus' and adopted a form of Keynesian economics.

What a load! The US already has minimum wages, welfare and so on and welfare what has created if anything is parasitism as people would much rather just sit in their welfare provided homes and make babies than to to actually go and work.

You don't know how America works, do you? The United States doesn't actually have all that much of a welfare state; your argument might be plausible in Europe or Canada, perhaps, but it doesn't work within the United Kingdom as that type of person very rarely exists in the US. Or, for that matter, in the UK. Where there is a valid welfare state. They exist, but they're not a majority.

Vast amount of civil rights? Yeah for the poor at the expense of the middle class which is to be sacrificed like lambs at the altar of your beloved Socialism.

And here, PunkMaister displays a basic lack of knowledge as to what civil rights actually are. Civil rights do not take anything away from anybody unless you're talking about freedom to act upon one's bigotry. Civil rights are your basic things like freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of marriage, freedom of choice, etc.

Take those away, and you're a fascist. I don't feel I'm invoking Godwin's law by saying that one, it really is the actual definition of fascism.

Over here we have socialized medicine and it has been nothing but a disaster and an ever more expensive pain in the arse. We use to have public hospitals now we do not because the government had to sell them in order to provide their social health plan and cards instead. So don't go talking to me about the benefits of socialism and let's not even go to the wonderful section 8 program that have turned all corners of the island into crime spots. Yeah socialism works and so does a hole in the head!

Yes, because one incident of failure can be compared with, say, Canada or the UK, where the healthcare is actually far superior to countries without universal healthcare. It's not in a particularly decent state at the minute, but it's better than the United States. Just because one example fails miserably doesn't mean they all do, and the best health system in the world is socialised. The French one, specifically. Now, let me tell you my admittedly anecdotal experience with socialised medicine; my grandfather and grandmother are alive today. At the time of their respective debilitations, we were a very poor family who couldn't possibly afford medical bills, and probably wouldn't be able to afford the medical treatments which saved their lives.

More to the point, my mother managed to survive cervical cancer due to socialised healthcare. Without that, my younger sister would not have been born, and I would be without the parent who encouraged me to stay in education and pursue my goal of becoming a writer. Hell, I can't quite remember from the details when it happened, so I myself may not have existed.

Really, only a complete fuckwit disagrees with the ideals of socialised healthcare; health is as basic a human right as oxygen. For that very same reason, I also disagree to some extent that we should have to pay for food, shelter and clothing. But one step at a time.

Bull! Just one look at all the Socialist countries that have existed or exist turns that argument to shreds... You are probably one of the Bozzos that think that private enterprise does not generate jobs nor general revenue.

No, I'm one of the clever people who looks at the long run. I've also seen the result of the long run when these private enterprises are given a blank slate to do whatever the hell they want. It's actually the source of a major worldwide banking crisis that you may or may not have noticed.

[PunkMaister]

Except for the, oh, thirty-five years between the Second World War and the rise of Margaret Thatcher that Britain went through. Y'know, the one where most of society entered an economic 'consensus' and adopted a form of Keynesian economics.

Britain is not a Socialist state it does have socialist programs though...

You don't know how America works, do you? The United States doesn't actually have all that much of a welfare state; your argument might be plausible in Europe or Canada, perhaps, but it doesn't work within the United Kingdom as that type of person very rarely exists in the US. Or, for that matter, in the UK. Where there is a valid welfare state. They exist, but they're not a majority.

Puerto Rico is virtually a welfare state in case you must know, it is this darn dependency and parasitism that has the island in it's current condition.

And here, PunkMaister displays a basic lack of knowledge as to what civil rights actually are. Civil rights do not take anything away from anybody unless you're talking about freedom to act upon one's bigotry. Civil rights are your basic things like freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of marriage, freedom of choice, etc.

We already have those thank you verty much without the need of implementing socialism in the scale you envision.

Yes, because one incident of failure can be compared with, say, Canada or the UK, where the healthcare is actually far superior to countries without universal healthcare. It's not in a particularly decent state at the minute, but it's better than the United States. Just because one example fails miserably doesn't mean they all do, and the best health system in the world is socialised. The French one, specifically. Now, let me tell you my admittedly anecdotal experience with socialised medicine; my grandfather and grandmother are alive today. At the time of their respective debilitations, we were a very poor family who couldn't possibly afford medical bills, and probably wouldn't be able to afford the medical treatments which saved their lives.

More to the point, my mother managed to survive cervical cancer due to socialised healthcare. Without that, my younger sister would not have been born, and I would be without the parent who encouraged me to stay in education and pursue my goal of becoming a writer. Hell, I can't quite remember from the details when it happened, so I myself may not have existed.

My brother has had to have over 4 mayor operations in the course of his life, in the latest one he had a tumor that was entwined in his Cava vein of all things so he went to Houston for what turned out to be an over 12 hours operation in which they had to give him over 48 blood transfussions to keep him alive while operating on him, he had to be sown back in stages because his tissues needed time to heal. I hightly doubt that they could ever perform even a third of that procedure in France. Socialized medicine is good for small ailments but for big things it always fall short, The reason your mom survived cervical cancer was because it was caught early.

No, I'm one of the clever people who looks at the long run. I've also seen the result of the long run when these private enterprises are given a blank slate to do whatever the hell they want. It's actually the source of a major worldwide banking crisis that you may or may not have noticed.

A lot of scams and corruption is what happened which Socialism cannot cure humanity off anyway. Better policing of dubious private enterprise ventures should be considered.

[Mike DiCenso]

Puerto Rico is virtually a welfare state in case you must know, it is this darn dependency and parasitism that has the island in it's current condition.

Hmmm, so what in your capacity as a Puerto Rican citizen would you think it would take in order to make this territory either finally vote to become the 51st state of the United States, or to finally go off on it's own and become a viable, independent nation in it's own right?
-Mike