First, let me say that this was originally going to be a reply to the topic “Money”, posted earlier in this section of the forum, however there was a red text message stating that the post was over 120 days old and suggested that I should create a new topic. So I did.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, charging money for something is not capitalism. Charging what you think someone is worth is not capitalism. Making money is not capitalism. Making more money than you need at the expense of others is capitalism.
Scout, I agree with your sentiment, however I’d have to say that borrowing money you do not have (especially in amounts you could never earn on your own) and being charged interest on that money is capitalism. Because the borrower did not work for that money and therefore has no emotional attachment to it, and because there is a great desire imbued by the lender to repay that money, the borrower may be put into a position where repaying the money is more important then the welfare of the borrower’s fellow people, the environment, the economy, or anything else for that matter. This is reflected in corporate law in that a corporation is required to put it’s bottom line and profit margins above all else. In other words, if a corporation engages in activity that is contrary to it’s shareholders “right” to earn a profit from their investments, it’s breaking the law and could lose it’s charter (see the documentary “The Corporation”). I think that for your definition, “Making more money than you need at the expense of others” is better fit with the term corporatism. However, don’t get me wrong. At the core concept, I find nothing wrong with the idea of borrowing money to, say, start a business or buy a home. It’s the charging of unfair intrest rates, or the lending of very large amounts of money (in the 100’s of millions or even billions) that creates the unbalnce in the system. Even more than that, we live in a country run by a fiat economy, where the money created by the Federal Reserve has no backing, and is printed and created out of thin air. THAT’s the problem. Check out this movie “America: Freedom to Fascism”.
On that note, I’d like to write a little about punks and anarchy, as it was a prevelant issue in the “Money” topic. First, let me say that nobody likes a punk. That’s the definition of a “punk”. A person who acts like a “punk” or generally rebellious, especially to the point of hurting others emotionally or physically, is acting out of anger and hatred. The term “anarchistic punk” is an oxymoron in my opinion, because true anarchy (no government at all) would never work if everyone hated eachother (or there was even a small group of “haters”). Only out of love, generosity, and care could such a “non”-system survive. Also, In my opinion, anyone that puts that much effort into how they look or how they act is more concerned with their own self image than the political system they live in.
A better ideal to reach for would be Noam Chomsky’s “Anarcho-syndicalism”.
To quote professor Chomsky:
A federated, decentralized, system of free associations incorporating economic as well as social institutions would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism. And it seems to me that it is the appropriate form of social organization for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into position of tools, of cogs in a machine, in which the creative urge, that I think is intrinsic to human nature will in effect be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.