Anything that has a chance of increasing survival rates in t

[Username17]

The distinction between Anarchists and Communists is a subtle one. So subtle that the differences in Communist theory and Anarchist theory loom larger than the distinctions between the two.

If you ask a Communist for his ideal state, chances are he'll say something about mass participation and sharing of responsibilities and productive output. And if you ask an Anarchist about his ideal state, chances are that he'll say something about sharing and participation and... that sounds really familiar.

And within both groups you have people who are willing to accept various levels of participation: from those who demand consensis to those who are willing to accept a strong leader who "speaks for the people". And you have groups who are willing to accept various levels of sharing: from those who demand that everyone have an equal share of the pie, to those who don't want anyone getting out more than they put in. But the basic ideal is there.

Communists and Anarchists differ primarily in that Anarchists have a black flag, and commies have a red flag.

---

Now, on a strategic level, Anarchist theory mostly holds that a destruction of the authoritarian state is a first and necessary step in the creation of a better society. While Communist theory holds that dispossessing the monopolistic capitalists is a necessary first step towards the creation of a better society. However, even that major distinction is essentially window dressing in a world where monopolistic capitalists have all but purchased the very authoritarian state that ensures their profitability.

So I've got no beef with anarchists as a whole. I think the rhetoric of state removal is silly on tautological grounds - but I've got no trouble allying myself with any faction that wants to remove the government's ability to bust unions.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1171572902[/unixtime]]

1171541447[/unixtime]]
Ok, I have no idea how this works exactly... I thought the government owned all the businesses. If businesses own themselves who decides who gets what salary?

The workers.

Ok, I think this is the part I'm not understanding. How do the workers control the buisness under socialism? Is it just one giant democratic vote where everyone has equal voting power?

If so, then that is even worse. Just what you want is your janitors and other mundane workers making decisions for your business solely because they outnumber the people with real business sense. Also, you'll be having these guys voting on crap so often that that they won't be able to do their own mundane jobs. Either that or (more likely) it turns into a bunch of uninformed voters. The US economic system may not be great, but it's a heck of a lot better than the political system.

Socialism seems like it would turn a company into a total management mess and would probably have more corruption.

[Username17]

1171806081[/unixtime]]
Ok, I think this is the part I'm not understanding. How do the workers control the buisness under socialism? Is it just one giant democratic vote where everyone has equal voting power?

I gathered that you didn't understand that point when you started talking about a lack of incentivization under socialism.

The truth is that the fact that an institution is "socialist" does not tell you enough to predict the manner in which that institution is controlled. It could be anything from a rigid top-down management style with the deciders being appointed by the central committee to a direct democratic process in which even minor overall decisions are subject to input from the entire industry.

The fact that an institution is socialist doesn't tell you what organizational structure it has, what methodlogy it uses, or its efficiency. All it tells you is what criteria its success or failure is judged on.

In corporate capitalism, the success of a venture is judged based on how much wealth can be extracted from it in the immediate future by those who own the capital that it uses. Under socialism, the success of a venture is based on whatever "the people" say it is.

Now, whatever your system, you're presumably going to have a system of evolutionary feedback that encourages "success" at the expense of "failure" - the key difference is what "success" actually is.

For example: A fishing corporation has the mandate to maximize profits in the next quarter: so naturally they fish as much as they possibly can. The end result is that a bunch of money is made now, and then the fish get depleted and the industry can't be sustained - but that's OK under this model because the capital is fluid and can simply invest in another venture without worrying themselves particularly.

Now consider the fishing industry under Socialism: it has some mandate other than making money. Maybe it has the mandate to maximize the amount of fish that are consumed by the people of the nation. Maybe it has the mandate to minimize the cost of fish to the consumer. It depends upon what goals it has been charged with what it will do. It is entirely possibly, for example, that it will be given shhort-sighted goals such as "maximizing the fish consumption in the next year" - which would have the same adverse ecological effects as the capitalist model that we're familiar with. It's also possible that it will have far seeing goals such as the creation of a high and sustainable fish yield.

But regardless, it is relatively rare that the people will decide that an industry's goals should be to ramp up production at any environmental cost to maximize output in the short term while ramping up prices as high as the market will bear in order to extract as much wealth as possible from society and hide it under the mattress. It's possible for the people to enshrine those goals - and then Socialism looks just like Capitalism - but usually goals are going to be somewhat different.

Like the Fire Department. That's a socialist institution. It has a top-down, almost military command structure that is highly regulated and formalized. And the goal is to maximize fire protection for the amount of wealth put into the fire protection system. It works pretty well at that - much better by the criteria of "lives saved" than the old for-profit fire departments ever did.

-Username17

[Catharz]

1171822321[/unixtime]]
Like the Fire Department. That's a socialist institution. It has a top-down, almost military command structure that is highly regulated and formalized. And the goal is to maximize fire protection for the amount of wealth put into the fire protection system. It works pretty well at that - much better by the criteria of "lives saved" than the old for-profit fire departments ever did.

-Username17

And thank goodness fire departments were Socialized. The way they originally operated was pretty fucking cynical.

[RandomCasualty]

1171822321[/unixtime]]
Now consider the fishing industry under Socialism: it has some mandate other than making money. Maybe it has the mandate to maximize the amount of fish that are consumed by the people of the nation. Maybe it has the mandate to minimize the cost of fish to the consumer. It depends upon what goals it has been charged with what it will do. It is entirely possibly, for example, that it will be given shhort-sighted goals such as "maximizing the fish consumption in the next year" - which would have the same adverse ecological effects as the capitalist model that we're familiar with. It's also possible that it will have far seeing goals such as the creation of a high and sustainable fish yield.

Well, if the workers own the company, then it's goal is likely just to be make money, like any capitalist venture. Unless the government controls the business, there's not any incentive for the business to pursue other goals beyond simple profit. I mean hell, if you're the workers, more money from the business means more money for you.

Why would you pursue a goal other than profit?

Like the Fire Department. That's a socialist institution. It has a top-down, almost military command structure that is highly regulated and formalized. And the goal is to maximize fire protection for the amount of wealth put into the fire protection system. It works pretty well at that - much better by the criteria of "lives saved" than the old for-profit fire departments ever did.

Wouldn't the fire department be communist, since it's owned by the government and not the workers?

[PhoneLobster]

Why would you pursue a goal other than profit?

Even assuming the workers pursue 'profit' (whatever you mean by that), or that its an option in that environment, they pursue it DIFFERENTLY to the way the capitalist pursues profit.

They want 'profit' now AND later, they want in the end a steady job and a good retirement, they want there to still be jobs for their kids and their community after they are done.

[Digestor]

Why would you pursue a goal other than profit?

...you serious dude? You honestly there's no thing a giant powerful entity has to value other than money? You don't think that maybe they should value, oh I don't know sayyyyyyyy humans?

I don't work hard at my horrible job because I think it's glamorous or because I get paid a lot (I don't, I really don't - and I do a lot of goddamn work), I do so because that's the person I am and I realize that hard work is, in and of itself, a goal - and that some ideas are more important than money will ever be. If everybody put in 100% due to intrinsic motivation, the world would be a beautiful place.

[Cielingcat]

I think that the CNN special on right now about insurance companies has some relavance to this topic. Specifically, their policy is to deny people coverage for minor injuries for as long as they possibly can to dissuade people from attempting to get their insurance, and then denying that they were ever injured using the fact that they had healed by the years it takes for them to finish the legal precedings. In essence, denying their customers the service that they pay for.

[Catharz]

1171840481[/unixtime]]

1171822321[/unixtime]]
Like the Fire Department. That's a socialist institution. It has a top-down, almost military command structure that is highly regulated and formalized. And the goal is to maximize fire protection for the amount of wealth put into the fire protection system. It works pretty well at that - much better by the criteria of "lives saved" than the old for-profit fire departments ever did.

Wouldn't the fire department be communist, since it's owned by the government and not the workers?

Fire departments are usually 'owned' by the city govenment, which is in turn 'owned' by the people living in the city, who act as investors and (sometimes) workers.

[Crissa]

Currently in our country, most forestry product companies are not capitalist corporations.

They are socialist operations which have a function 'to produce the most amount of product every year. Forever.' They are either operated by local governance, companies with set capital to work with, or bid for capital from the federal government. They plan for cuts and growth of decades and centuries in advance.

Now, the capitalist corporations hate this - they constantly try to change the people working for the democratic government so they can wring out the most profit this year, and convince a number of people this means they will be hired, and therefore get a portion of that profit. They don't tell these people that they don't care if there's any portion to be shared next year.

These capitalitic endeavours own no land, no capital, and borrow the rights to 'take' trees from other landowners, despite the current and future damage this will do to the land.

What they often do is buy land, cut the trees, then sell the land immediately to whatever use is possible - not doing the expensive bit of caring for the land to grow another crop of trees. They don't care if they crush a fishing industry to do this, pollute a town's water supply, hire and then fire all of a town's workers. Because they got the one thing they wanted from the land: Profit.

People, the workers, want to work this year and next.

What business savvy do you need to choose a sustainable course of action over a non-sustainable one?

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1171849065[/unixtime]]
Fire departments are usually 'owned' by the city govenment, which is in turn 'owned' by the people living in the city, who act as investors and (sometimes) workers.

Well, by that logic, Walmart is 'owned' by the consumers, since they're paying the salaries of everyone in that corporation.

The fire department is still government run, not run by workers.

These capitalitic endeavours own no land, no capital, and borrow the rights to 'take' trees from other landowners, despite the current and future damage this will do to the land.

What they often do is buy land, cut the trees, then sell the land immediately to whatever use is possible - not doing the expensive bit of caring for the land to grow another crop of trees. They don't care if they crush a fishing industry to do this, pollute a town's water supply, hire and then fire all of a town's workers. Because they got the one thing they wanted from the land: Profit.

People, the workers, want to work this year and next.

What business savvy do you need to choose a sustainable course of action over a non-sustainable one?

I'm not sure where the myth that capitalism is inherently destructive comes from. Yeah, some capitalistic endeavors can rape the land, but it's not like other non-capitalist countries did it any better. As stated earlier, communist Russia did a lot of environmental damage too.

You can be in it for profit and want sustainable profit too. Because lets face it, it's a lot of work (and risk) researching constant new endeavors to put your money in. Sometimes you can take your money out of a profitable endeavor and put it in something that ends up crashing and burning. While it may seem that the most effective strategy is constantly be moving your money around, that just hasn't proven very true for modern businesses, at least not successful ones.

Ford didn't suddenly stop making cars and decide to go into farming. Microsoft didn't stop producing computer products and invest in hunting rifles. The tobacco companies don't decide to just burn through all their tobacco fields and then invest their money elsewhere. McDonald's didn't decide to just suddenly stop serving fast food.

I'm not sure why you and Frank keep clinging to the idea of "hit and run" capitalism. A great deal of capitalistic companies are in it for the long haul and sustained profit. Hell, almost every major corporation you can name is in it for sustained profits at what they do.

...you serious dude? You honestly there's no thing a giant powerful entity has to value other than money? You don't think that maybe they should value, oh I don't know sayyyyyyyy humans?

Well, if it's your company, whether you're a worker or investor, you want money out of it. I mean hell, most people don't work just cause they enjoy it, they work for money. And more money is better.

Some people just want fancy cars and big houses. Other people just want to sit back and enjoy life, working as little as they can and spending more time with friends and family. Other people want to build a legacy and gain fame.

Regardless of what you're after, a successful business is one that produces money.

I don't work hard at my horrible job because I think it's glamorous or because I get paid a lot (I don't, I really don't - and I do a lot of goddamn work), I do so because that's the person I am and I realize that hard work is, in and of itself, a goal - and that some ideas are more important than money will ever be. If everybody put in 100% due to intrinsic motivation, the world would be a beautiful place.

That may be true. But the world just isn't like that and you just can't approach large scale policy with a "what if" utopian ideal. Yeah, it'd be nice if people cared about each other and helped each other out, but that's just not the way the world works.

Most people don't work for the sake of working, they work toward personal goals.

[Username17]

Well, by that logic, Walmart is 'owned' by the consumers, since they're paying the salaries of everyone in that corporation.

No. By that logic Walmart's executives own all the people who survive day to day at Walmart's whim. You've got this whole "ownership" thing backwards.

The fire department is still government run, not run by workers.

Actually no. Fire departments have a great deal of autonomy. They are beholden to the government, but the people who actually control everything and make all the decisions are members of the fire department.

But that's not even important, because Fire Departments are not a full-blown communist enterprise. I think we may have to back way up at some point and actually go through MArx point by point because you really have not a single clue what it is that you are arguing against. But that's got to wait, because right now you're butting your head against the very core of governmental theory, which makes discussions about the fine points of economic policy sort of irrelevent.

---

The distinction you are trying to make between the government and the people is not one that necessarily has any meaning. Indeed, government exists on the assumption that it speaks for the people on a mandate from the people who in turn make up the nation. At least, that's the mandate of any government which has "citizens" instead of "subjects".

We all know that many governments are oppressive, or suborned by powerful interest groups at the expense of the group, and so on and so forth - but the entire justification for a government of citizenry is that it speaks for the people.

That is, there are two justifications for government: one comes from a mandate from above - be it a religion, force of arms, or personal awesomeness. In this governmental model, the people are "subjects" of the governing body which speaks for the people as an owner does for his dog. A classic modern example of this governing system is Saudi Arabia, where the King literally owns all of the people living in the country and they live or die at his whim.

The other justification comes from below - the people agree upon a system for working out differences and hashing out group projects and long-term plans. In this system, the government is the will of the people to the extent that everything it does is something that the people have agreed to have it do on their behalf.

---

Now in reality, most governments are a combination of the two. Strong personalities like Hugo Chavez use tremendous national popularity to justify anything they want to do as being the peoples' will. Secretive and sketchy people like Dick Cheney use the hand waving terminology of "national security" to perform actions in secret under the justification that the people would support them if they knew what they were and also would support not being told if they knew what it was that they weren't being told which is why noone knows what it is that they would be supporting if they knew about it.

And so on.

But the entire theory of representation is that if the people have a say in who their representatives are, then they defacto have a say in what those representatives do.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1171907794[/unixtime]]
No. By that logic Walmart's executives own all the people who survive day to day at Walmart's whim. You've got this whole "ownership" thing backwards.

Well no, if you're going by the source of the money is the owner, such as saying that the people own the government, then Walmart really is owned by the people as well, simply because without the consumer, Walmart couldn't function and would fall apart, similar to a government without any taxpayers.

Now, I don't agree with this logic, but that's the natural extension of saying that the people own the government.

Actually no. Fire departments have a great deal of autonomy. They are beholden to the government, but the people who actually control everything and make all the decisions are members of the fire department.

Well autonomy is actually irrelevant if you aren't getting any of the money and having the final say. The fire chief can't just decide to pocket fire department spending instead of buying fire trucks, because the government says so. Thus for important stuff, it's really not controlled by the workers, but rather the government. The fire chief just works like a store manager does at Walmart. Yeah, he's got a lot of power for making decisions, but he doesn't own the corporation and is cut out of the important stuff.

But the entire theory of representation is that if the people have a say in who their representatives are, then they defacto have a say in what those representatives do.

Yeah, I don't believe that that system really works. Not after seeing the sham that the US political party system has become.

I mean as bad as one can bash capitalism, it's not that bad compared to the horror show that the US governmental system has been reduced to.

[Username17]

Yeah, I don't believe that that system really works. Not after seeing the sham that the US political party system has become.

Sham? The Senate is doing exactly what it was designed to do: block populist legislation and prevent the masses from having a direct say that would potentially dispossess the aristocracy.

The fact that our government was designed in the seventeen hundreds to prevent "mob rule" rather than to represent the people does not mean that governments that are created along populist ideals are impossible.

Yeah, the only meaningful vote you have in the United States is your dollar - that doesn't mean that voting in abstract is futile, just that the United States has slid into despotism.

Now ask yourself: "Who subverted American Democracy? Was it Fire Departments and Public Education Institutions, or was it Corporations and men with sizable inherited fortunes?"

-Username17

[Zherog]

1171907794[/unixtime]]

The fire department is still government run, not run by workers.

Actually no. Fire departments have a great deal of autonomy. They are beholden to the government, but the people who actually control everything and make all the decisions are members of the fire department.

>>Snippy McSnip was here!<<

-Username17

I think that depends on what municipality you're talking about. For example, in Philadelphia the Fire Commissioner is an appointed office. The mayor picks who holds the position, and that person reports directly to the mayor. The mayor can literally appoint anybody he wants - even somebody without any prior firefighting experience (and, sadly, this has happened on plenty of occasions).

So, at the upper most levels the Philadelphia Fire Department is absolutely a direct extension of the the city's government.

However, once you get down to individual firehouses, your statement is correct. Each station runs on four shifts. On any given day, one shift works "day" work (8am to 6pm); another shift works "night" work (6pm to 8am). The other two shifts are off. Three of the shifts have a Lieutenant, and that individual is in charge of the day-to-day operations on that shift. The fourth shift has a captain. The Captain has the same responsibilities as the Lieutenant when it comes to his shift; however, he/she is also responsible for what occurs at the fire station in general.

(there's also "batallion chiefs" who are responsible for several fire stations in a given area, but we'll skip those for now).

The City determines who is appointed a lieutenant, captain, and so on. The city further determines who is assigned to what station, and on what shift.

Once you're past that red tape bullshit, yes - things like who's going to cook and who's going to make sure the "canteen" is stocked, and how much is paid for "house money" and all that shit is in fact determined by the individual fire fighters at any given station.

***

So if you're talking about the upper leadership (again, in the fucked up world of Philadelphia politics), then the Fire Department is most definitely just another government branch. If you're talking about individual stations, though, your statement is more or less correct - at least as far as housekeeping and such.

[Digestor]

Well, if it's your company, whether you're a worker or investor, you want money out of it. I mean hell, most people don't work just cause they enjoy it, they work for money. And more money is better.

You missed it - that's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. The idea that working for something other than money, like progress, is that "other thing" that people may want to work for.

Regardless of what you're after, a successful business is one that produces money.

I'm not dumb enough to fall into a trap and try to argue about what 'success' means.

That may be true. But the world just isn't like that and you just can't approach large scale policy with a "what if" utopian ideal. Yeah, it'd be nice if people cared about each other and helped each other out, but that's just not the way the world works.

Most people don't work for the sake of working, they work toward personal goals.

Right - and that's bad, all of that is bad. Simply because it just IS doesn't in any way shape or form defend or justify any of it. Rape happens - doesn't mean people shouldn't try to stop it.

Besides - I'm not justifying anything - I answered your question of what people might want to work for other than profit. Though really, profit is greater when they work towards progress and ideals than an extra dollar fifty an hour.

[Digestor]

I just noticed someone referenced USSR era Russia as 'communist' .... Misnomer - The USSR was not a Communist union.

[Judging__Eagle]

1171932925[/unixtime]]I just noticed someone referenced USSR era Russia as 'communist' .... Misnomer - The USSR was not a Communist union.

Right, it was a totalitarian feudal state, masking itself as communist.

Then again, the US has never had a democracy.

[RandomCasualty]

1171911640[/unixtime]]
Now ask yourself: "Who subverted American Democracy? Was it Fire Departments and Public Education Institutions, or was it Corporations and men with sizable inherited fortunes?"

It was 'men' period. The flaw is with humanity effectively. Which is why my whole argument is that socialism wouldn't work.

Sure, it'd be totally awesome if people weren't devoted to personal gain and were interested in bettering society as a whole. But that's just not the way most people think. Most people do hard work to benefit themselves. So you get more productivity if you've got a dangling carrot of wealth and security, as opposed to the incentive of "you're helping out your country."

The nature of mankind is one of personal and familial gain. While sometimes it can extend to a village or settlement level, it rarely extends to the point that you care much about people you never interact with.

[Neeek]

1172087613[/unixtime]]
The nature of mankind is one of personal and familial gain. While sometimes it can extend to a village or settlement level, it rarely extends to the point that you care much about people you never interact with.

That's patently false. Just look at the amount people donate in response to major natural disasters. After the tsunami, 7 billion dollars was given by people who'd never met the people hurt by the event. Further, studies have shown that people who *aren't getting paid* work harder and enjoy what they are doing more.

[Username17]

I think I've figured out RC's argument. It goes from this premise:

Whatever Social Structure You have, people will break the rules.

That is, unfortunately, a true premise.

But see, that's where he's driving his car into crazy town, because from that he goes to the conclusion that:

"Society should be structed in such a way that hurting other people is encouraged or required."

And that's straight up an untenable position when looked at from any angle. The disconnect is that he's arguing from the stance that because some people will break the rules, that the people breaking the rules are the most important part of society. Thus, that structuring society so that everyone eats and has healthcare is bad because some people won't get food or healthcare anyway because society will be undermined by someone at some point.

The problem with this line of reasoning is the extrapolation from the specific to the general. It's essentially the same as the specious argument in Hitchhiker's Guide about how life doesn't exist.

--

In reality, people break rules. Societies are not perfect. Goals are not achieved. But that doesn't mean that setting yourself positive goals is counterproductive. Because while some people commit crimes, the majority of people do not.

Yes, organized crime will totally exist. People will embezzle a noticable amount of wealth from society as part of that whole "crime" thing that they do. And the bigger society gets, the bigger crime gets. And it's a serious question as to whether putting up with that is worth the completely massive savings you get for having the economies of scale that you get from having bigger societies.

But crime is not a bigger component of more egalitarian societies. Evidence suggests in fact, that the opposite is true.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1172090486[/unixtime]]
"Society should be structed in such a way that hurting other people is encouraged or required."

If you want to look at it that way, then yes.

I believe that society should be geared towards human nature. Socialism just seems to me to be a big lie. It's this belief that humanity is all one big happy family and helps itself out and everything. It's based around the belief that everyone is selfless and dedicated to help society solely for the purpose of helping society.

Yeah, a nice dream, but that's not the way people work, at least not most of them.

People want personal gain, people want to build their own legacies, people want their own personal happiness. People generally don't give that much of a fuck about what happens to others they don't know. Yeah they may donate to charity once in a while to get a warm and fuzzy feeling, but you dont' see many of them signing up for the Red Cross. They just want to build their own futures and the futures of their families and maybe once in a while do some stuff that lets them feel better about their own morality.

This isn't to say people are going to go out of their way to hurt people for the hell of it, it's just to say that they're more interested in their own goals. And humans need goals to keep them motivated. Yeah it'd be nice if people could have goals like "build a better society", but that just doesn't motivate most people.

Secondly, humans like to compete. We do it naturally. Even at a young age, we like to win. Even if we happen to lose sometimes, the fact that we could win keeps us competing. And that structure just plain works and fits with our nature. While it may be more 'fair' to let everyone tie, humans just don't like that. We like the feeling of victory. Socialism is like having the only game on your shelf be tic-tac-toe, where everyone gets a tie all the time and nobody is satisfied. People are more satisfied losing at checkers rather than constantly playing tic-tac-toe to a draw. It may not feel good at the time, but at least it gives them goals to aspire to and in the long run is a much better motivator than tic-tac-toe.

And that's what capitalism is about. Winners can enjoy winning and losers have the hope of one day becoming winners. Some people may say it's unfair, and that's totally true. But humans are used to unfairness. The entirety of reality is unfair.

And we like it that way.

Do we want everything in life to be decided by a coin flip? Or would we rather have our decisions mean something? Because the moment our decisions start to matter, then things become unfair. But again, that's the way we like it.

This isn't to say all socialism is bad. There are things you do socialize, like fire departments, because it benefits everyone and is non-competitive. Putting out one guy's fire doesn't mean necessarily that anyone else has to burn. Nobody loses out when we put out fires for everyone.

It's merely the idea of widespread socialism and the abolishing of the idea of profit and winning that doesn't work. There will always be competition, it's part of who we are. It's part of being human.

And when you've got competition, you've got winners and losers.

[Catharz]

1172094424[/unixtime]]
And when you've got competition, you've got winners and losers.

You're talking about "winners and loosers" playing The Prisoner's Dilemma and The Tragedy of the Commons.

And in RC world, everyone looses because it's their human nature to maximize their benefits at the cost of those around them.

Socialism isn't about some magical faryland where everybody is always nice and gives everything to everyone else. It's about demonstrating how fucking stupid it is to shit in your own backyard.

[Edit] I say this not as a socialist, but as someone who has studied game theory and optimization problems. I could be wrong about what socialism is, but I'm not wrong about how fucked up your proposed ideal world is.

People evolved to cooperate. All social animals do. People evolved to be composed of about 10% asshats, and that 10% keeps people competative as long as they're playing the expansion game. But once the world is your own back yard, you just end up with a 10% that shits in it all the time, because they're too damn' lazy to use the toilet.[/edit]

[RandomCasualty]

1172096343[/unixtime]]

And in RC world, everyone looses because it's their human nature to maximize their benefits at the cost of those around them.

Well no. Not really. "RC world" is nothing more than the real world as it is now.

Seriously, I'm not proposing any new world order, I'm just defending capitalism as it is now.

And I'm not saying that humanity is evil or anything. It's just that they tend to do stuff which is better for them, which may or may not involve hurting others.

[Maj]

I'm just defending capitalism as it is now.

While my personal views aren't anywhere near Frank's, I do agree that capitalism as it is now sucks. It's not worth defending.