Going to hell in a hand basket

[Darth Rotor]

Going to hell in a hand basket

1. Capitalism is already mitigated by application of socialistic practices, to one degree or another, in many social frameworks. Sweden more so, US less so, as examples. "Pure Free Market Capitalism" is an ideal like Pure Communism, that I don't think will be achieved while the nation state exists as a social form. If the evolution of social/economic models proceeds toward the Corporation as a direct political entity (Plutocracy? Oligarchy?) with a parallel whithering away of the nation state, then a neo-feudal structure will be in place based on pure "wealth," albeit not as tied to land as the previous feudal structure was.

As to Malthus, while his general principle has been undermined by assumptions, the mitigation of Malthusian predictions in not absolute. There is the law of dimnishing returns on productivity in agriculture, for example, as well as a finite ability of the ecosystem to heal itself as humans pull resources from it. (See the Cod fishery mess on the US/Canadian East Coast for a fine example)

If pure capitalism (which I consider a predatory, nearly anarchic social form) arrives as the dominant model of global political/economic/social activity, a few things will happen:

Pure competition will result in more, perhaps smaller, wars over resources

The UN will have long since been dispatched with

Tarrifs and protectionism will, ironically, be applied by various monopolies, or near monopolies, as a means to exercise economic power, backed up by mercenary armies.

The standard of living will go down, as the middle class will effectively cease to exist.

Education will, once again, be a privilege of the rich

TV will replace religion as the opiate of the people (if it hasn't already ) consistent with the Bread and Circuses theme

Harems will become more commonplace across a broader spectrum of society

Prisons will increasingly turn into forced/slave labor enterprises

DR

 

[marksman]

As to Malthus, while his general principle has been undermined by assumptions, the mitigation of Malthusian predictions in not absolute.

Nor is the inevitability of Malthusian predictions.

Pure competition will result in...

Except the OP, like Malthus in his day, was railng against actual present society, not some hypothetical non-existent "pure" capitalism that has never existed, never will exist, and never should exist.

 

[drkitten]

In the world of natural science existence is that which is measurable. If it cannot be measured it does not exist--except as that which must be exorcised--in any important way in the world of natural science.

Once again, you got it wrong from the very first sentence.

 

[DreadNiK]

If pure capitalism (which I consider a predatory, nearly anarchic social form) arrives as the dominant model of global political/economic/social activity, a few things will happen:

Pure competition will result in more, perhaps smaller, wars over resources
The UN will have long since been dispatched with
Tarrifs and protectionism will, ironically, be applied by various monopolies, or near monopolies, as a means to exercise economic power, backed up by mercenary armies.

The standard of living will go down, as the middle class will effectively cease to exist.

Education will, once again, be a privilege of the rich

TV will replace religion as the opiate of the people (if it hasn't already ) concistent with the Bread and Circuses theme

Harems will become more commonplace across a broader spectrum of society

Prisons will increasingly turn into forced/slave labor enterprises
DR

Pshaw. Pure capitalism would be indistinguishable from anarchy. Think about it. It can't happen, just like pure communism cannot.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Pshaw. Pure capitalism would be indistinguishable from anarchy. Think about it. It can't happen, just like pure communism cannot.

. . . the OP, like Malthus in his day, was railng against actual present society, not some hypothetical non-existent "pure" capitalism that has never existed, never will exist, and never should exist.

Now that I do think of it, you are both right.

Purity of essence is only truly available in rainwater and grain alcohol.

DR

 

[coberst]

I've quoted something by Noam Chomsky. It seems appropriate here.

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must -- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may well be essential to survival."

 

[marksman]

I've quoted something by Noam Chomsky.

I'd rather you actually respond to the people who were kind enough to respond to you than to post Chomsky quotes without explaining how they might be responsive to anybody. Or is your point that as you believe that Chomsky agrees with you it becomes unnecessary to respond to anybody who doesn't?

 

[brooklyn44]

I'd rather you actually respond to the people who were kind enough to respond to you than to post Chomsky quotes without explaining how they might be responsive to anybody. Or is your point that as you believe that Chomsky agrees with you it becomes unnecessary to respond to anybody who doesn't?

I, too, wonder if you bother to read and digest any of the comments directed to you OPs. You have the ability to muddy the simplest ideas with overblown rhetoric. I find it hard to gather the emotional resources to address any of your posts. But i do want you to know that I experience the frustration that those who are braver (and wiser) than I feel when engaging with you, Coberst.

 

[Skeptic]

The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can.

Ah, yes, of course.

What Chomsky is saying here is the latest non-answer to the old riddle: "if capitalism is so bad and socialism so good, how come capitalist societies are so much richer and prosperous than socialist ones?". The traditional socialist answer is that this just has to be because the capitalists are "exploiting" somebody or something.

For Marx, the reason for capitalist prosperity was that the capitalists are "exploiting the workers" in their countries. Alas, this theory turned out to be slightly less than credible when it became unquestionably obvious that the workers in capitalist societies have a higher standard of living than 99% of the the population in socialist countries.

So the next "answer" was that the reason for capitalist prosperity is its "imperialism" and exploitation of workers in other countries. Nowadays, that too seems a bit unreasonable, because it became unquestionable clear that the more capitalist countries invest or are involved in other countries, the more prosperous it is and the better off the people there are; hence we have, on the one hand, the "exploited" Taiwan or South Korea or India or Turkey, and on the other, the "liberated" North Korea or Libya or Sudan or Zimbabwe.

So what's left? Well, the enviorment, of course! For Chomsky-ites everywhere, the latest "answer" to the old riddle as to why capitalist countries are prosperous and socialist ones are poor is that the capitalist countries exploit the enviorment and "treat the world as a garbage can".

Unfortunately that, too, is nonsense. The enviormental record of the western world is far better than that of socialist countries; the way Russia and and China polluted (and still pollute) their enviorment is something that makes the worse enviormental disasters in western countries pale into insignificance. The only reason some socialist countries pollute less than western ones is that those countries are so poor and produce so little--thanks to socialism-- that, naturally, they do not pollute much. But that hardly is a point in favor of socialism.

This stands to reason, of course: in a capitalist country, one can sue a company for polluting the land one owns, or can punish a polluting company by not buying from it, to say nothing of using free speech and elections to pass laws against pollution; in socialist countries, which are dictatorships, there's no penalty for polluting and no reward for stopping pollution.

The rather obvious point that the enviormental record of capitalist countries is far better than that of socialist ones has not yet become clear to Chomsky and his followers. When it finally becomes unmistakeably clear to them--judging from experience, this shouldn't take more than 30-40 years after it became clear to everybody else--I wonder who or what they will claim the capitalists are "exploiting" then.

If Martian colonization is a fact by that time, you can bet your bottom dollar the Chomskyites will claim the only reason the USA is still so much richer than North Korea is the evil capitalistic USA is "exploiting" Mars.

 

[coberst]

Didn't you read what I said??

There are no "principles", "contructed logic" or anything else. It just is. All we can do is try to understand why it is.

The question you are asking is like asking what is the constructed logic behind gravity? There is none, it just is.

I copied this listing of some of the principles of capitalism from
http://www.freeos.com/articles/4133/

Wealth

"Wealth is the result of man's ability to think applied to the sphere of production and trade. Reason, ultimately, is the source of all wealth."
"Fundamentally, wealth is the product of man's mind-and belongs to each man to the extent that he created it."
"Wealth belongs to the individual who produced it."

Property

"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

The Rights of the Producer

"The right to dispose of one's income belongs to the producer, and if he wishes to give it to an heir, a charity, or to flush it down the toilet-that is the producer's right. It is not any of your concern, and it certainly is not the concern of the government."

Trade

"Free competition is the freedom to produce, and the freedom to trade what one has produced, for one's own self-interest, i.e, in the pursuit of one's own happiness."



Statism - the enemy of Capitalism

"How does capitalism differ from statism?
Statism is the opposite of capitalism.
Only capitalism declares that each and every man, may live his own life for his own happiness, as an end to himself, not by permission of others, but by right, and that government's sole responsibility is to protect those rights, and never violate them, because they are inalienable."

 

[New Ager]

I think we should just blanket Iran with Wal-Marts and then they will be having too much fun to want to kill us.

And make sure each store has plenty of those yellow smilie characters.

 

[HeavyAaron]

I think it's quite impossible to have a discourse with the definitions of the key terms have been so horribly distorted. There is no longer a common language in which to speak.

Aaron