is there a plausable,workable alternative to the capitalist system?
368298
Yes, ideally.  Personally, I find anarchy a very interesting, frustrating, but potentially workable alternative to the capitalist system for some.  However, this relies on many many things.  The purest form of Communism is also an interesting concept, but no government has been able to reach that.\n\nAs crazy as it may sound, I think anarchy can work in small groups among people who share the same ideals about how a system should work.  Although there is no form of government in an anarchy, there are a couple of principles that underlie a properly funcitioning anarchist group.  The first is that each person does not look out for his or her own needs, but the needs of each of the other individuals in the group.  This is different from Communism or Socialism in that in those systems, the betterment of the collective, all people as a unit, is considered, rather than the betterment of each individual.  Anarchy is a bit more appealing in this way, because it is better able to gauge the needs of an individual.  Through this system, if one is looking out for every other person in the group, they also have the entire group looking out for their interests.\n\nThe second important prinicple that leads to a functioning anarchist group is coming to decisions through concensus.  This means that every single member of an anarchist community must agree with a decision before it is made.  This is very difficult and time consuming.  It is very hard to get even 25 people to agree on something as trivial as pizza toppings!  However, it is an important step to functioning as an anarchist collective.  With this and the above ideals in mind, it is easy to see that anarchism can really only work in small groups.  To say that we would all be fine without a government or any sort of social order, as anarchism is commonly understood, is just foolish.\n\nCommunism is also an interesting alternative because ideally, in a perfect system, there would be no one leader, but instead a cooperating and functioning system in which everyone gets an equal share.  Companies would find out how many shoes were needed, make those shoes, and the people would get them.  People would work, and would thus be able to get the goods they needed, but all would get the same.  However, this is also complicated, and would be a very hard system to set up and maintain.\n\nAlthough these two theories are interesting as theories, they rely on the idea that human beings are good, and would work with each other and cooperate.  They also rely on the idea that people will not want compete with each other for more money, things, or a better life, as in the capitalist system.  That seems like a slightly naive assumption.  I'm not sure if they would work in practice as a whole economic system, especially in a country with democratic ideals such as the United States.  Communism and anarchy are contrary to the very ideals of democracy, in some sense.  However, they make for interesting discussion.
487217
Only choosing between the 2.. capitalism FOR SURE...\n\nCommunism will not work at all in combination with human nature. We as humans want our efforts to go towards our family and our well being. Would a person willingly work extra hard and watch the benefits of the extra effort going to the lazy SOB down the street who does NOTHING???\n\n*********\nAnd to the ignorant youth who spout off their little "anarchy" crap... the best thing you can do is shut up. Your little attempts to look rebellious or special are just plain ridiculous. A society with no laws would not be a good thing. And the little "look at me" geeks who spout this crap would be the first ones actually weeded out in a 'survival of the fittest' anarchist scenario....
593006
Show me the $$$MONEY$$$--it's the Amerrcan way of life.  Capitalism, privatizashun, an free enterprize.  If you don't like it, move to some commie country.
493937
I think you are talking about Economic System of Canada. Well Canada is neither Communism nor Capitalism. Canada is socialism economic. I want to suggest you research about three economic system at Wikipedia.
335672
History has proven pure communism or socialism doesn’t work. Humans are free thinkers and eventually demand access to individual freedoms and rights. History has also proven pure democracy and capitalism doesn’t work either.\n\nThe answer is a balance between the two. In a perfect society there would be enough social programs to support the poor, sick, and needy while providing opportunity for those “go getters” who wish to pursues wealth and success.
1107462
At least you  have thought intelligently about how we middle class citizens can survive with all the burdens that hard work costs us personally!  It's a pretty innovative concept, but you are over-looking the fact that this possible solution would effect the wealthier portion of our population and really what does wealth go hand in hand with.........?.....\nPOWER, my friend...the rich would never allow such a solution!  Keep brainstorming.....perhaps a workable idea to save the debacle our government calls "retirement"...........We pay and pay and research shows that our medicare/retirement benefits (which enable us to dine on dog food) will virtually become non-existent before too long!!
912456
Controlled socio-engineering?  Probably.  As for how it will impact truly progressive policies... probably very little.  However, it may slow the nation's path down the drain a bit.
967743
There are many communist (China, N Korea, Cuba) and socialist countries (Sweden, Russia, France) where your ideas and assistance would be appreciated. Forgive me if I don't rush out in a lather to follow in your wake.
347913
a communist system could be democratic...there are, for instance, socialist countries now in south america where their leaders were elected.\n\nbut communism differs from capitalism in that in a communist society the means of production (factories) are woned by the state.  in a capitalist country - like the US - private individuals own factories etc. and make profits from them.\n\nin a communist country money is supposed to be distributed equally....the state makes the money and distributes it equally.
906841
There has yet to be a functional government that was actually communistic, and very few socialistic ones that lasted more than a couple of years, no matter what they advertised themselves as being.\n\nI'll take free enterprise any day, over socialism, communism, capitalism or fascism all of which have the unity of government control of business as a shared sin.
92923
There may be a conflict here, however  you can not have one with out the other.  True Capitalism will only work in a true democracy.  Whenever the government steps in to control all business you will usually find one type of totalitarian government or the other running things and this takes capitalism out of the equation and make for a very dreary life for those working in that country.  Capitalism is a system of hope, if you are poor in a capitalist society you have hope of climbing out of being poor.  In a non-capitalist society if you are poor that is where you can expect to stay.
438699
Based on the following I don't think capitalism exists anywhere.  Even the US has it's controls on business and it's welfare agencies.  Prior to it's turn over to China, Hong Kong was probably the closest thing to pure capitalism on the planet.  At least that is my opinion.\n \ncap·i·tal·ism (kăp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm) \nAn economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.\n\nSocialism, general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is to be contrasted to the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service.\nIn a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill defined, although its main purpose, the establishment of cooperation in place of competition remains fixed.
6246
A definate yes. It's hard to implement though, especially with the current state of the economy and government...
686007
Yes I agree with all that, I can't see much to discuss there? unless you are looking for an alternative like Communism?\nI don't think that would go down very well on this forum!\nWhy not readdress your question and ask for , or even suggest alternatives? Good luck with that, I follow your drift but it doesn't really leave much scope for discussion.
459959
For our friends that pick communism Explain why it failed.  I grant you the fantasy sounds great.  The reality produces less for all.\n\nPure Capitalism will not work either not one is greedy enough.  Greedy enough means being willing to work hard enough to make sure no one else can restrict your life style.\n\nBy that definition pure capitalism is very inefficient both for labor and capital.  The US with all its faults maybe the best we are going to get.\n\nOur Taxing policy is a bit funny also.  The individual (except maybe for the extremely high payed ones)are paid by what society feels they are worth. Then the taxman says since society feels you are so valuable you can donate by force money for the good of the rest. \n\nEnjoy the 1st Worlds life style while you can.  When the energy that makes it possible drys up so will the economy! There are 2 caveats to this statement we could go Nuclear or  the economics of Renewable Energy has to change.  Renewable Energy will never be directly economically viable unless our energy bill skyrockets after the infrastructure is installed or 2 international governments donate/invest a large enough plot of land to make private investor set up and take notice.  This land must be of little value for the politician's constituents to allow it, but the designer must see a way to change the value that is large enough to subsidize the infrastructure.
731135
No such thing as too much money in a free market capitalist system. Hmmm what would you suggest happen? Income redistribution, give some to the poor folks? Nope, they can go to work and make there own!\n\nDonna H down below me, for your information rich Americans are the most benevolent givers of any nation. We give to charities every year more money then the gross national product of most nations on this planet. So don't say they don't give anything back because that my dear.......is a lie!
624007
capitalist..but the liberals want to make it socialist