Capitalism is bullshit.

First lesson as software engineer is "how to maintain job security".

And no you don't do it trough producing well commented and clean code, that you do at home if coding is your hobby.

At work your first task is to code few procedures that are used everywhere, and spaghetizie their code, so nobody but you can maintain them. Producing spagheti code is quite easy even if you are one of those handicapped programmers that produce only clean and logic code. There are scripts that can translate one programming language to another, use it few times and you will have nicely obfuscated code. But always keep clean sources on personal USB if you need to fix something.

Also some nice methods to assure CTO you are needed, that i developed over years:
- use variables with such names: IO_check and l0_check,
- some random binary shift on pointers every friday the 13th,
- use recursive calls whatever possible, lots of programmers have trouble with this.
- perl is great for coding huge systems, imo its best script for job unsecure programmers

But what i know i am just reenignEesreveR

So capitalism is why software I buy has bugs, and needs patches.

That's all I needed. More reasons to hate it.

What's the alternative?

Intelligent resource management, first through education, then democracy.

How does capitalism stop that?

AMmayhem said:

How does capitalism stop that?

Click to expand...

It degenerates into cronyism.

[m]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-IXcrQOgm0[/m]

Zur said:

It degenerates into cronyism.

Click to expand...

The problem with capitalism is that the People don't keep it in check to prevent it from degenerating into cronyism.

The problem with government regulation is that the People don't keep it in check to prevent it from degenerating into tyranny.

Humans are a silly bunch.

AMmayhem said:

The problem with capitalism is that the People don't keep it in check to prevent it from degenerating into cronyism.

Click to expand...

That's it's natural evolution, though.

The real problem is most people in a capitalist system only see it at the entry level: A replacement for barter, so a medium of exchange can better serve a larger, more diverse economy for the working community.

Where this notion fails is in the concept of ownership.

Once a person is capable of owning means of production, and employing people, they no longer have to contribute anything themselves. They no longer have to work, yet they still make money. So what do they do? What any decent Monopoly player would do. Buy more means of production, with said money.

What's amazing to me is that we don't learn more from Milton Bradley's board game. The key to winning the game, is the same key to being successful in a capitalist economy: Ruthless acquisition. The end result of the game, is the very same result that government regulation is there to slow the process of: consolidation of wealth. One person with everything.

Capital begets capital.

Without a means of taxation and redistribution, there is nothing to stop a capitalist economy from ending up the same as a game of Monopoly. What's more, as technology reduces the need for jobs and toil, we start to face a growing problem of technological unemployment. This, of course, is ignoring the cancerous effects of interest, and the capability of making "money off of money" where, nothing is actually contributed or produced. Somehow, these people are the ones who profit the most, while teachers, farmers, and manufacturers all scrape by.

Not really sure how anything about this system remains to be "okay" by anyone.

However, redistribution encourages laziness. Why work when someone's giving you money anyway? There's also the questions of where to draw lines. Who determines what is rich? If so many people fail to reach the "rich" mark, will it be lowered? What incentive would there be to be successful when heavier taxes is the result?

Sure we all acknowledge the lust of greed in humanity, but let's not forget our desire for laziness as well.

The goal is elimination of the exchange medium, which invalidates most of the argument you are making. There will be no money to give.

Tedious droning toil makes people lazy. Not being given sustenance. Give people creative outlets which they are passionate about to produce, and they will. Especially so when their needs are met, and they don't have to stress over things like food and shelter. As well, the point of work should be to produce something valuable to society, not "make money."

Capitalism creates every problem it solves. Greed is not natural, it's learned. I'd also render a guess that your definition of "success" is not your own, but that of Capitalism's.

The goal is to get rid of money? Humanity had that, it's called the Barter System. It's very limiting. How would plumbers, barbers, and doctors get food and shelter? And that's just to name a few occupations.

If one person invents something valuable to society, how do they meet the demands of society? They can't hire anyone without a method of payment for services, nor can they force someone to work for them without pay. How could they pay in food and shelter? If the inventor is busy making a new toilet for people to crap in, how are they able to give food and shelter as payment to those helping produce more toilets?

Mining companies used to provide company housing for it's workers. Even allowed them to buy food from the company store using money only the company minted. Workers didn't seem very happy about that and went on strike. Heck, even slaves got food and shelter, yet that wasn't enough for them.

There also arises the question of what is "quality" food and shelter? Simply looking at how many different diet systems are out there tells us that everyone can't agree on what is healthy eating. Many people are fine with living in an apartment, but even those vary in size. If we only provide bare minimum of food and shelter, what do people have work for? A bigger residence? Better food? How is this accomplished with no exchange medium? Who determines what is bare minimum?

Capitalism is simply the ability of one party willingly agreeing to exchange goods or services with another willing party. With no interference from anyone not party to the exchange.

I agree that many jobs are very monotonous and don't encourage people to work hard. If the job sucks, then quit; find or create a better one. It's voluntary exchange.

We have the technology to replace money without taking steps in reverse.

There is nothing simple about Capitalism. A simplistic view on it is responsible for the main perpetuation of the myths, that the market is free, or that the system rewards hard work and contribution.

It's not a small undertaking, and takes a real visionary to start to wrap their head around systems that will work. There is no short answer.

Rest assured, there are plenty of people, communities, and organizations who do see through the propaganda, and are working these detail out every day in hopes that we can start to replace this system before it collapses on the planets head.

-AEnubis- said:

It's not a small undertaking, and takes a real visionary to start to wrap their head around systems that will work. There is no short answer.

Click to expand...

Insults have no place in a discussion.

-AEnubis- said:

We have the technology to replace money without taking steps in reverse.

Click to expand...

What sort of technology? Do you mean electronic currencies? Bitcoin? Because that is still a medium of exchange.

Some would be resource tracking, some would be enhanced automation.

To try to put it succinctly, there would need to be a degree of achieved "abundance" first, and honestly, it wouldn't be hard. When you end the monopoly on development land ownership by the banks, food would no longer be a problem. Between that and any of the advents of vertical farms and urban green houses, the need to ship food could be easily eliminated. Add in the renewable sources of electricity, who's infrastructure requires far less maintenance, and you could easily eliminate the need for coal miners, and oil refinery's, and providing people with basic necessities - free of charge - is no problem, beyond an initial installation.

Ultimately, what it's about it eliminating the need for work. Elimination of the exchange medium alone is estimated to absolve sixty to eighty percent of the total toil, as jobs in the stock market, investing, advertising, marketing, cashiers, a large chunk of management positions, accountants, bankers, brokers, bill collectors, tax collectors, and sales people in general would no longer be necessary. Millions of jobs are already threatened by technology and automation, and what ever isn't could be easily be divided up amongst the remainder in much shorter work weeks, or years depending on what's left, while those good with technology work on automating the rest.

Quality goods could easily replace quantity goods, especially when they are the kind of thing you don't use everyday, and could be stored and managed in community depositories according to demand.

Time share systems already exist for prime real estate, that shouldn't be a difficult transition.

Honestly, if built from the ground up it would be pretty easy to design, the transition, and re-education is what really complicates things.

"Capitalism is bullshit"

So are homeopathic medicines, but people still buy into it.

The pharmaceutical industry creates customers, not cures. "Buying into" homeopathic medicine... lol Most of it is just eating better.