Can we survive Global Capitalism?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



coberst

The Dark Cloud
Global capitalism will be disasterous in the long run. There will be no middle class, only rich and poor.There will also be accerelated depletion of the earth's already strained resources. We need national governments to regulate cspitalism.

Symmetric Chaos
We probably can, but I doubt that capitalism will survive it. The problem with increasing capitalism will be in the short run rather than the long run. If we establish a purely capitalist world the danger will be in how it reorders itself of the course of a decade or so, that will set the tone for everything else.

If anyone gains a too much power in the process it will falter and collapse. If anyone gains lots of power in the process nothing will change from what we have now (except that those in power will have an extra way to justify themselves). If power and wealth are spread with general equality things will go well, though personally I believe it will collapse eventually as the distribution shifts more and more towards those who are already rich.



On this: "Schooling has left us learning-handicapped already. This effort must be self-learning."

I don't believe anyone who needs to be pushed towards self education will ever really do it. Schooling is beneficial but could (like most things) use updating to more modern methods and knowledge. Also that statement is based on a very limited view of schooling, many honors classes push students toward independent thought and self-education.

mindbomb
I dont think there will be global capitalism so I would not worry

Even if one group of people controls the whole world they will set up puppet goverments so that they do not seem the same and some of those goverments will not be capitalist

coberst
. Generally speaking tomorrow's GDP must be greater than yesterday's GDP or the system dies. When GDP goes up the rate of planet consumption goes up; the stored resources of the planet then go down.


The logic of global capitalism leads to the consumption of the planet.

Symmetric Chaos
That's hardly a requirement for capitalism, even if it is a likely course.

inimalist
Originally posted by coberst
Biologists, and probably other sciences, inform us that human conceit, i.e. human ego, distorts our ability to comprehend our self.

psychologists

wink

ushomefree
Elaborate on your view, please. I'm interested. Still, I can not help but think, that you have a distorted view regarding open markets. Honestly, no pun intended. Help me understand your position.



This is true - at least the first half of your statement, in my opinion. World resources are in fact depleting, but this is largely due to - first! - a growing world population. The supply of food sources and oil, simply can not meet demand. The world is not a utopia, and it never will be. Second, government regulation is not the answer, in my opinion. Governments by nature suppress people. Governments do not liberate; governments only serve it's own needs to gain/acquire more power.

Have you ever attended a college level History 101 course? Honestly, I am just asking.

kgkg

Bardock42
Originally posted by inimalist
psychologists

wink

Not a science.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not a science.

Depends on the specific sub-field. Psychoanalysis isn't really a science but behaviorism sure is.

Shey Tapani
We survived much worse.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Depends on the specific sub-field. Psychoanalysis isn't really a science but behaviorism sure is.

all things considered, in modern psychology, it might be the opposite. Psychoanalysis, while not something I really am a fan of, refers to a thereputic approach by clinical psychologists that has several peer-reviewed journals and some strengths. I still think cognitive approaches to treatment are better than psychoanalytical, but they are, at least, reviewed and reformed in the same way any science is, though all psychologists would admit that treatment is inherently less "purely scientific" than research psychology is.

Behaviorism, however, in a modern sense is scientifically bankrupt. While it did have rigorous methods of expreimentation at the time, the fact that it ignored internal cognitive processes in their influence of behaviour means that anyone who ascribed to behaviourism today would be appealing to ideas long shown to be incorrect, and certainly not supported by modern evidence. There are sorts of "neo-behaviourist" ideas that emphasize bottom-up and pre-conscious influences on behaviour, but they aren't the same as Behaviorism proper, in the Skinnerian sense

Mindship
Originally posted by inimalist
I still think cognitive approaches to treatment are better than psychoanalytical... yes

...though sometimes psychoanalysis does score more points because it jives with a particular patient's expectations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not a science. Go away.

Liberator
Of course we can. Already things are in motion for a worldwide revolution, or at least a revolution in Europe.

Revolution or not, people are becoming more awake to the flaws in the systems. I don't think this system will last much longer to be honest, the people are taking notice.

lil bitchiness
It is simply not normal for world richest 1% to own almost 40% of wealth on this planet, while 50% of world adults own 1% of all wealth, according to UN statistics.
It is unstable and it will collapse...

EDIT: The report found the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total of global assets.
Jesus...

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is simply not normal

in what time period do you suppose there was a more equitable distribution?

lil bitchiness
There wasn't. If there was, it was on tribal levels. Just because it has never happened, does not mean it is impossible. We are still very savage and uncivilized.

Darth Jello
Free Market Capitalism is as destructive to a society as communism-But Faster!

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is simply not normal for world richest 1% to own almost 40% of wealth on this planet, while 50% of world adults own 1% of all wealth, according to UN statistics.
It is unstable and it will collapse...

EDIT: The report found the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total of global assets.
Jesus...

What do you understand under "normal".

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Free Market Capitalism is as destructive to a society as communism-But Faster!

What examples of destructive free market capitalism are you thinking of?

parenthesis
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There wasn't. If there was, it was on tribal levels. Just because it has never happened, does not mean it is impossible. We are still very savage and uncivilized. He's commenting on the fact that you called it "simply not normal".

Infact, your answer showed it not only to be normal, but the apparent contraversy over the issue of it's normality contradicts the simplicity.

This is why people need to talk in a more sophisticated manner, rather than using common phrases such as "simply not normal" or "just because" or even "I don't think".

Darth Jello
Originally posted by Bardock42
What examples of destructive free market capitalism are you thinking of?

US during the guilded age and before the depression, victorian london, chile, argentina, greece, romania, bulgaria, guatemala etc.

Amazing Vrayo!!
If a revolution happens, it will happen. There's no way to stop it. Everyone knows that system's broken, but why rush things. This thread itself is just pushing the date of the revolution closer.

inimalist
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Free Market Capitalism is as destructive to a society as communism-But Faster!

thats not true at all

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you understand under "normal".

Getting paid for what you produce rightly and equally, as opposed to being exploited, enslaved to make shirts for half a pence and hour and your plantations and countries destroyed by United Fruit...for example.

Or moreover staging coups in your country to overthrow you, if you demand that oil production benefits people in your country.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Getting paid for what you produce rightly and equally, as opposed to being exploited, enslaved to make shirts for half a pence and hour and your plantations and countries destroyed by United Fruit...for example.

Or moreover staging coups in your country to overthrow you, if you demand that oil production benefits people in your country.

What do you base calling that "normal" on?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you base calling that "normal" on?

On the values we supposedly hold in our 'democratic and fair' society.

Bardock42
I see, so how does now that definition of normal fit together with your usage in the case of wealth distribution?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
I see, so how does now that definition of normal fit together with your usage in the case of wealth distribution?

If our democratic and fair society at the core holds values such as equality, fairness, freedom and equal opportunity for all, then, it is not normal that the world functions contrary to that.
It is functioning contrary to the ideals of democracy but MOST importantly contrary to 'equal opportunity for all'.

inimalist
but everyone involved in this thread would agree that those are largely mythologies left over from manifest destiny and the cold war. nobody, afaik, is arguing that modern democratic nations have ever been free, and I would certainly argue that "fundamental freedom and equality" have never been core to any nationstate. the ink on the constitution was barely dry before the forfathers were trying to silence political opposition.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
but everyone involved in this thread would agree that those are largely mythologies left over from manifest destiny and the cold war. nobody, afaik, is arguing that modern democratic nations have ever been free, and I would certainly argue that "fundamental freedom and equality" have never been core to any nationstate. the ink on the constitution was barely dry before the forfathers were trying to silence political opposition.

They are amongst core beliefs of democracy - lack of implementation is another thing. I would argue that socialism is amongst fairest systems in the world, considering what it holds at its cores. I would also argue that communism has the right idea.

It is more than obvious that implementation of our democratic principles are lacking. It is the REASON why the world's wealth is so disproportionate and why not everyone has equal opportunity, because those who are ''guardians'' of our democratic systems and beliefs are the ones who are constantly pissing on it.

Thus, implementation is not the discussion here. Bardock has, rightly, asked me why I don't consider disproportion in wealth the ''norm''. He has a good point.
My answer, as is my reason for stating that, is that the society we live in, holds as its core belief, and thus, I personally would argue, a norm, equal opportunity and fairness.
It is thus not a norm that wealth is in such a disproportion, and the root of that is lack of implementation.

inimalist
what I am saying, though, is that our society, nor any other nation state for that matter, have fairness or equality been central. It may be part of the narrative of democracy, but all forms of government, be it communism, Islamic theocracy or absolute monarchy have called their system just and fair, yet they aren't.

even in the case of the modern socialist nation, the services can easily be seen through the lense of realpolitik and parties vying for specific voter demographics rather than any sense of fairness.

I struggle to think of credible examples of what you think communism has right...

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
what I am saying, though, is that our society, nor any other nation state for that matter, have fairness or equality been central. It may be part of the narrative of democracy, but all forms of government, be it communism, Islamic theocracy or absolute monarchy have called their system just and fair, yet they aren't.

even in the case of the modern socialist nation, the services can easily be seen through the lense of realpolitik and parties vying for specific voter demographics rather than any sense of fairness.

I struggle to think of credible examples of what you think communism has right...

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely ridiculous and simply not true - Islamic theocracy, absolute monarchy, to take your examples, never claim to be fair - Islamic theocracy states that Muslims are held in a higher regard than the dhimmis and in many cases impose higher taxes for those of different faiths, often called jizya. Some may tolerate existence of others, but they never claim to be equal with them. To take an example of Ottoman empire, churches and synagogues could never be built to stand as high or higher than mosques.

Absolute monarchy relies on, in many cases, on monarch being chosen by God, and thus elevated in their status, and never equal nor fair to the farmer working just off his land somewhere. They accept that those who are born as farmers are indeed born lower than themselves as per God's decision and are by proxy there to serve them, as are many others.
None of them claim fairness, but right, often bestowed to them by their religion or their God, and the others accept that as absolute truth. It isn't fairness, it is acceptance that you are lower and not equal to those who have more money or more land, again, as per God.

What made our societies core values so revolutionary is the regard for ALL peoples, regardless of faith, creed, social status...etc, as well as idea that all, if given opportunity could in fact excel.

For communism you don't need to look for examples, as I never claimed communist government existed - every country claiming to be communist has been a dictatorship or close to, and therefore, not communism. I clearly stated that I believe ''communism has the right idea''. For reasons why, and for reasons why communism can never be imposed, see Karl Marx' Das Kapital.

inimalist
there is a fundamental difference between "claiming-to-be-fair-and-just" and "following-western-ideas-of-fairness". the former being what in said, the latter being what you replied to. in fact, you have emphasized my point.

all societies have a narrative about the relationship between authority and the common man, and within each of these narratives, that relationship is defined as fair, based generally on cultural assumptions about human behaviour. we can get more into this, but most theocrats from the Islamic world see democracy as corrupt, given their experiences with the west, and if you read the rhetoric khomeni, qutb, the muslim brotherhood or even Muslim feminists, you clealy see they advocate for the intrinsic fairness of sharia, even if it might not conform to western ideals of what is fair.

so, similarly, you only see democracy as something that should ensure fair treatment of people be ause you accept the definitions of fairness implicit in the democratic narratives that arose from the national identity of America ans the west during the enlightenment, the era of manifest destiny and the cold war. this is a definition of fairness that nearly worships a document that "guarantees" fairness, signed by slaveholders, and having the immediate impact of reducing the individual freedom of the citizens of the new nation. by the time of the second president political dissention was nearly criminalized.

also, I find it confusing that you can praise communism and yet confess that it's every manifestation has resulted in dictatorship without being sarcastic. it's like the Anti-colonial Muslims who saw the problems with their states as being from not enough conformity to Muslim law, rather than seeing an inherent flaw in the ideas themselves.

sorry for the lack of quotes, I'm on my phone ATM

753
Originally posted by parenthesis
He's commenting on the fact that you called it "simply not normal".

Infact, your answer showed it not only to be normal, but the apparent contraversy over the issue of it's normality contradicts the simplicity.

This is why people need to talk in a more sophisticated manner, rather than using common phrases such as "simply not normal" or "just because" or even "I don't think".

Modern human species is 100 thousands year old according to recent migration out of africa theory, the overhelmingly accepted one. Pre-historic humans are overhelmingly believed to ahve been nomadic, egalitarian in regards to distribution of access to natural resources and lacking what could be considered private property. Sedentism and recorded human history is about 10 thousand years old and the emergence of private property over means of production is even more recent. The search for profit and the perception and use of natural resources in function of maximum productivity instead of satisfaction of concrete needs is more recent still. Capitalism is barely 500 years old. Not only this, but a very small minority of societies developed private propety and capitalism organically, capitalism actually expanded itself through military conquest and the subjugation of populations that could provide labour and natural resources and consume the idiotic earth killing surplus capitalism produces.

It is abnormal, given the time frame of human existence and the total range of human cultures and distribution on the planet. It is not the certain fate of human social development, not all societies would develop it on their own given time. It is not the way things always were or have to be.

753
To answer the OP question, the planetary ecossystem cannot survive global capitalism indefinitelly. But it won't die because of it, current forms of economic organization and, in fact, the human species will disappear long before planetary extinciton. Then the ecossystem will regenerate and as the current extinction rate is brought to a halt, the specitation process will eventually cover the hole left by the current extinction crisis (in numeric terms anyway). I doubt capitalism and industrial civilizations will still be arround much longer though.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by 753
Modern human species is 100 thousands year old according to recent migration out of africa theory, the overhelmingly accepted one. Pre-historic humans are overhelmingly believed to ahve been nomadic, egalitarian in regards to distribution of access to natural resources and lacking what could be considered private property.

I wonder, though, is this egalitarianism simply a perception or is it based on archaeological evidence?


Originally posted by 753
idiotic earth killing surplus capitalism produces.

Stronger advocates of capitalism would point out that in fact capitalism benefits from not destroying the planet and thus doesn't do this. I however will point out that such an idea is similar to what inimalist said about communism above.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by inimalist
there is a fundamental difference between "claiming-to-be-fair-and-just" and "following-western-ideas-of-fairness". the former being what in said, the latter being what you replied to. in fact, you have emphasized my point.

all societies have a narrative about the relationship between authority and the common man, and within each of these narratives, that relationship is defined as fair, based generally on cultural assumptions about human behaviour. we can get more into this, but most theocrats from the Islamic world see democracy as corrupt, given their experiences with the west, and if you read the rhetoric khomeni, qutb, the muslim brotherhood or even Muslim feminists, you clealy see they advocate for the intrinsic fairness of sharia, even if it might not conform to western ideals of what is fair.

so, similarly, you only see democracy as something that should ensure fair treatment of people be ause you accept the definitions of fairness implicit in the democratic narratives that arose from the national identity of America ans the west during the enlightenment, the era of manifest destiny and the cold war. this is a definition of fairness that nearly worships a document that "guarantees" fairness, signed by slaveholders, and having the immediate impact of reducing the individual freedom of the citizens of the new nation. by the time of the second president political dissention was nearly criminalized.

also, I find it confusing that you can praise communism and yet confess that it's every manifestation has resulted in dictatorship without being sarcastic. it's like the Anti-colonial Muslims who saw the problems with their states as being from not enough conformity to Muslim law, rather than seeing an inherent flaw in the ideas themselves.

sorry for the lack of quotes, I'm on my phone ATM

It becomes evident that you have not read Das Kapital and thus raise issues such as ''every communist attempt turns into dictatorship''.
I think it is thus pointless discussing communism.
I have clearly stated that Marx clearly explains that system CANNOT be imposed.
Stalin was well aware of this, and had done numerous economic things to artificially induce transition into communism, failing so obviously.

For the rest, we're just going in circles. I have clearly answered the question you have posed.
Bardock has made a good point as to why I said 'normal', but he seems to have disappeared now.
Perhaps I could have used better choice of words.

753
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I wonder, though, is this egalitarianism simply a perception or is it based on archaeological evidence?




Stronger advocates of capitalism would point out that in fact capitalism benefits from not destroying the planet and thus doesn't do this. I however will point out that such an idea is similar to what inimalist said about communism above.

I am basing that on archaeological evidence and historical and contemporary study of surviving hunter-gatherer societies. This isnt to say they meet abstract ideals of justice or equality, but that there's no private property - which is not the same as possesion or usufruct - and none or insignificant acumulation of wealth and or exclusive access to resources on the hands of an elite poreventing free access to natural resources by the rest of the population within the same society.

Well, they may claim capitalism doesn't destroy the planet, but undeniable ecological evidence says it does. More to the point the biggest devastators of the planetary ecossystem are rich capitalist nations by far. This also shows that overconsumption and not overpopulation is the main source of environmental degradation. Although demographic explosion also plays a significant role in it.

It should be noted that other societies that practice massive production (specially industrial) and consumption and, therefore, massive alteration and destruction of the ecossystem are also harmfull. None have been as damaging as rich capaitalist ones though.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by 753
I am basing that on archaeological evidence and historical and contemporary study of surviving hunter-gatherer societies. This isnt to say they meet abstract ideals of justice or equality, but that there's no private property - which is not the same as possesion or usufruct - and none or insignificant acumulation of wealth and or exclusive access to resources on the hands of an elite poreventing free access to natural resources by the rest of the population within the same society.

What is the evidence for lack of private property? Or rather what is the evidence for preponderance of public property?

753
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What is the evidence for lack of private property? Or rather what is the evidence for preponderance of public property?

Private property is a relationship among people in which the owner of a thing can exclude others from using or possesing said thing - i am referring specifically to natural resources or means of production here.

Because hunter-gatherer societies and many agricultural and or pastoral societies did not practice this exclusive access, they cannot be said to have private property. Everybody uses the resources arround them without imposing restrictions on the beahavior of others to do so. The products of the hunt and gathering - a group effort - were also distributed equally. Little to no surplus lead to little to no acumulation and the products of group enedeavors were largelly distributed among all members of the group equally. Intelectual property was simply inconceiveble.

Common areas for farming were also frequent in socieites with varying levels of hierearchy from command economies such as ancient egypt (that had a class devide and was not egalitarian) to kibutz like egalitarian communes.

If you want some academic sources on hunter gathere economy, I can recomend:

Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment. John Gowdy

Egalitarianism and Machiavellian Intelligence in Human Evolution Mellars & Gibson.

Subsistence, Ecology and Food production. A lecture by Thomas M. Kiefer

Woman the Gatherer and Man the Hunter are also two books on the subject.

The bibliography on the subject extends far further, but I'm not a specialist on it. If you're interested, just research origins of private property. There's also a lot of political and philosphical literature dealing with it of course.

inimalist
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It becomes evident that you have not read Das Kapital and thus raise issues such as ''every communist attempt turns into dictatorship''.
I think it is thus pointless discussing communism.
I have clearly stated that Marx clearly explains that system CANNOT be imposed.
Stalin was well aware of this, and had done numerous economic things to artificially induce transition into communism, failing so obviously.

For the rest, we're just going in circles. I have clearly answered the question you have posed.
Bardock has made a good point as to why I said 'normal', but he seems to have disappeared now.
Perhaps I could have used better choice of words.

I failed to recognize the one truth then?

if only governments could be more true to X and not corrupt by ! that is the real way for mankind!

Darth Jello
Is Social Democracy and/or Democratic Socialism so much to ask for?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Is Social Democracy and/or Democratic Socialism so much to ask for?

Social Democracy in practice is also not just one thing, they can lean closer to capitalism or closer to socialism. But yeah, a mild social democracy is definitely a nicer thing than this corrupt weirdness the US employs, huge government spending, little social security...you have the worst of both worlds.

Mindship
Benevolent Capitalism: oxymoron?

RichardBrittain
Probably not.

ushomefree
Too late!

Markets around the world are in dire strain, and countries are utterly bankrupt - the end result of manipulating open markets to serve those in power while subsidizing/liquidizing endless debt. This is nothing new, and this nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with Capitalism - open markets and fiscal responsibility.

To the contrary, it is reserve banks around the world that have created jaw-dropping epidemics of this proportion (hand-in-hand with politicians that promise the world).

Did you know that the total unfunded liability obligations of the US exceeds 110 trillions dollars?! Umm... that ain't Capitalism pal, ha ha!

Just in case you've been living on the moon the past couple of decades, that's more than the GDPs of countries around the world C-O-M-B-I-N-E-D!

All you can do at this point, is prepare for a gloomy future. The damage is already done. Yes, people need to become educated, but it's too late to change the course of history. People need to buckle up, and prepare for the ride ahead.

US Dept Clock

inimalist
its amazing how fast "drank-the-kool-aide" conservatives turned on corporations and the power structure...

I mean, cool, I'm more down with this than the previous 20 years, but like, WOW!

ushomefree
Inimalist-

The problem is not with the Corporations; the problem resides in the Federal Government's failure to uphold the Law. The US is now an Oligarchy - run by banking cartels and foreign powers. And... we did it to ourselves!

The American Form of Government

inimalist
ya, and people on the radical left have been saying that since the late 80s...

its like you just got the message...

ushomefree
Inimalist, let's have a conversation, not a pissing contest, ha ha! If you disagree with me on certain terms or entirely, let it be known. Let us discuss our differences - we can learn from one another.

inimalist
lol, you can piss all you want, its a funny observation, to me at least, that the rabid anti-corporatism that I loved when I was first getting into politics has now become the bread and butter of people so long against these ideas.

That anyone who ever supported the war in Iraq would complain about government spending makes my head do weird twists... and it happened overnight... it must be the mix of Obama in office and the economy...

ushomefree
Inimalist-

Corporatism and Capitalism are entirely different things, you (hopefully) know that. Corporatism is nothing more than a buddy system - hence, all the idiotic bail outs we've seen over the past 4 years or so. It's corruption - capitalism usurped by banking cartels and special interest groups. Hey, I have an idea, let us dump a bunch of tax payer's money into failing companies and wish for the best (because I have a friend in high places). Why not? If the FED can print billions of dollars (over top of tax receipts) out of thin air and feed it to failing companies - further inflating the US dollar - they should be able to compete with successful companies, yes? The answer is no! I really don't understand what your getting at. And by the way... our National Defense budget makes up about 5% of our Nation's GDP. Honestly, what is your stance? If I can respond tonight, I will. Otherwise, I'll touch base tomorrow. Good grief.

inimalist
I haven't made any points for you to argue against really.

I've simply stated that I think its funny to see such a distinct change in rhetoric so quickly.

I guess you could report me for trolling, but I've been generally on topic and you continue to pursue the issue.

ushomefree
And all I'm trying to say is this: I've always felt this way about the country. It's broken. It doesn't take all day to recognize the sunshine. Anyway... have a good one - gotta get up early in the morning. Take care.

Dreampanther
Check out Immanuel Wallerstein's World-Systems-Theory. It addresses most of these questions - though by no means do I believe it is a comprehensive (or even the best) theory - yet, I think, you will find the theory tries to address most of the questions raised in this debate.

A synopsis:

Derived from the work of Karl Marx and made into a developed set of ideas by Immanuel Wallerstein, who shows that capitalism is not just an economic system bounded by national borders highlighting class inequality. Rather, capitalism must also be seen as involving relationships among nations and these relationships too are based on inequality. Those nations which developed capitalistic economies early then went on to dominate other nations through colonization or simply through linking the economies of the nations in ways that favored the more dominant nation and placed the others into a condition of dependency on the dominant nation. This state of dependency tended to hamper the development of the other economies.

Another synopsis:

The world-systems theory stresses that world-systems (and not nation states) should be the basic unit of social analysis. World-system refers to the international division of labor, which divides the world into core countries, semi-periphery countries and the periphery countries. Core countries focus on higher skill, capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world focuses on low-skill, labor-intensive production and extraction of raw materials. This constantly reinforces the dominance of the core countries. Nonetheless, the system is dynamic, and individual states can gain or lose the core (semi-periphery, periphery) status over time. For a time, some countries become the world hegemon; throughout last few centuries, this status has passed from the Netherlands, to the United Kingdom and most recently, the United States.

The most well-known version of the world-system approach has been developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in 1970s and 1980s. Wallerstein traces the rise of the world system to 15th century, when European feudal economy suffered a crisis and was transformed into a capitalist one. Europe (the West) utilized its advantages and gained control over most of the world economy, presiding over the development and spread of industrialization and capitalism economy, indirectly resulting in unequal development

amnesia
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Is Social Democracy and/or Democratic Socialism so much to ask for?

Implying social democracy is something special. I live in Norway, i should know a thing or two about it.

I NEED TO PAY OVER 17 DOLLARS FOR A PACK OF SMOKES!!!

Dreampanther
Originally posted by amnesia
Implying social democracy is something special. I live in Norway, i should know a thing or two about it.

I NEED TO PAY OVER 17 DOLLARS FOR A PACK OF SMOKES!!!

Sucks to be you! stick out tongue

Hee hee - sorry, couldn't resist. I was in Norway a couple of years ago, and I heartily agree - 80 kronor for a beer and 320 kronor for a pizza nearly made me cry - especially as I earn South African rand! I think at the time I was there, Oslo was said to be the most expensive city in the world...

amnesia
Originally posted by Dreampanther
Sucks to be you! stick out tongue

Hee hee - sorry, couldn't resist. I was in Norway a couple of years ago, and I heartily agree - 80 kronor for a beer and 320 kronor for a pizza nearly made me cry - especially as I earn South African rand! I think at the time I was there, Oslo was said to be the most expensive city in the world...

Junk food is very expensive in Norway. Healthy food is cheap. It's the reason I'm pretty fit though.

753
Originally posted by ushomefree
Too late!

Markets around the world are in dire strain, and countries are utterly bankrupt - the end result of manipulating open markets to serve those in power while subsidizing/liquidizing endless debt. This is nothing new, and this nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with Capitalism - open markets and fiscal responsibility.

To the contrary, it is reserve banks around the world that have created jaw-dropping epidemics of this proportion (hand-in-hand with politicians that promise the world).

Did you know that the total unfunded liability obligations of the US exceeds 110 trillions dollars?! Umm... that ain't Capitalism pal, ha ha!

Just in case you've been living on the moon the past couple of decades, that's more than the GDPs of countries around the world C-O-M-B-I-N-E-D!

All you can do at this point, is prepare for a gloomy future. The damage is already done. Yes, people need to become educated, but it's too late to change the course of history. People need to buckle up, and prepare for the ride ahead.

US Dept Clock

This is very much so capitalism, the only kind that has ever existed. The State has always protected and conluded with capitalists.

Remember how people spoke of 'real socialism' to refer to the soviet union and preserve the dream of a righteous proletariat dicatorship that wasn't all ****ed up? Same deal here. The 'capitalism' you speak of is just wishfull thinking and has never existed.

inimalist
Originally posted by 753
This is very much so capitalism, the only kind that has ever existed. The State has always protected and conluded with capitalists.

Remember how people spoke of 'real socialism' to refer to the soviet union and preserve the dream of a righteous proletariat dicatorship that wasn't all ****ed up? Same deal here. The 'capitalism' you speak of is just wishfull thinking and has never existed.

so very true

Bardock42
I also don't know what the US department of clocks has to do with it...

leonheartmm
as a race, probably, if we can keep wmds in check. wont be a fun ride though

Stoic
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Global capitalism will be disasterous in the long run. There will be no middle class, only rich and poor.There will also be accerelated depletion of the earth's already strained resources. We need national governments to regulate cspitalism.

I agree completely with this train of thought. Eventually global capitalism would buckle under it's own weight. Then again, the way that things seem to be going most systems of economics will likely falter.

D-Wag
I have been sitting here reading everything everyone had to say from the very beginning of this thread, and I have to say I'm glad I did. I feel this this topic is a start to an ever growing-none stop thought on how to save our existence. Most of you have great views on the system/government most of us in the world currently live in. I don't have too much to say about the topic but, the global capitalism is absolutely corrupt. Whats the use of bailing out corporation after corporation...its just going to lead to more bail outs and failure. We need a change in the way we as humans do things. Everyone is either looking for a way to get rich or stay afloat. Why? No one really takes notice to the planet itself. Its proven that we started as scavengers to survive, then later leading to hunters and gatherers as we became more intelligent. Hunting and gathering is still used to this day in tribal societies! Now we have more sophisticated homes and ways of living which is great...but failing in some criteria. I believe technology is the key. Technology is improving, yes..but its improving so slowly now its a joke. We have the capabilities to make a lot of things safer for day to day activities, but we don't do these things all because it cost money. What ever happened to doing things because its the right way to do things...the smart way. I have sooo much more to say, but ill leave it at that for now. Please comment.

Daylan.O
My AP Euro teacher tried to explain to me capitalism... I still don't get it

Lord Lucien
Really?

Liberator
Originally posted by D-Wag
I have been sitting here reading everything everyone had to say from the very beginning of this thread, and I have to say I'm glad I did. I feel this this topic is a start to an ever growing-none stop thought on how to save our existence. Most of you have great views on the system/government most of us in the world currently live in. I don't have too much to say about the topic but, the global capitalism is absolutely corrupt. Whats the use of bailing out corporation after corporation...its just going to lead to more bail outs and failure. We need a change in the way we as humans do things. Everyone is either looking for a way to get rich or stay afloat. Why? No one really takes notice to the planet itself. Its proven that we started as scavengers to survive, then later leading to hunters and gatherers as we became more intelligent. Hunting and gathering is still used to this day in tribal societies! Now we have more sophisticated homes and ways of living which is great...but failing in some criteria. I believe technology is the key. Technology is improving, yes..but its improving so slowly now its a joke. We have the capabilities to make a lot of things safer for day to day activities, but we don't do these things all because it cost money. What ever happened to doing things because its the right way to do things...the smart way. I have sooo much more to say, but ill leave it at that for now. Please comment.

Nothing lasts forever I guess.
Hopefully human evolution sees to it.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Liberator
Nothing lasts forever I guess. Not even cold November rain.

King Kandy
Global capitalism is going to melt down inevitably. I think your best bet for surviving when that happens is try to sustain yourself from what exists in your local community. Maybe we'll see communes coming back as a popular form of living.

Lord Lucien
The last thing for sale in the capitalist world will be thousands of nuclear warheads. Buy 1,000 get 10 free. Discounts on radioactive fallout. We're practically giving nuclear winter away!

alltoomany
Originally posted by coberst
Can we survive Global Capitalism?
Schooling has left us learning-handicapped already. This effort must be self-learning.

Adults must begin a concentrated effort toward developing an intellectual life far beyond that which now exists.

if we do, will the children come?

Nephthys
Only if they wash their hands afterwards. ;33

ushomefree
What does any of this have to do with "Capitalism"? Take a college course in economics, for crying out loud - or study yourself approved. Your ignorant.

Super Marie 64
Originally posted by ushomefree
What does any of this have to do with "Capitalism"? Take a college course in economics, for crying out loud - or study yourself approved. Your ignorant.

Dangerous to challenge someones intelligence when you yourself display a lack of it. Just saying.

You'll get much further in any discussion if you don't start them by looking like an idiot when trying to make someone else look like one.

lord xyz
So I've been reading a bit about Adam Smith, so come on capitalists, why should there be different classes in society?

alltoomany
why should there be different classes in society?

all men are not born equal

lord xyz
Originally posted by alltoomany


all men are not born equal That's funny because one of the first things John Locke says in The Treatises of Government is "all men are born equal".

alltoomany
Originally posted by lord xyz
That's funny because one of the first things John Locke says in The Treatises of Government is "all men are born equal".

under God all men are born equal, not necessarily ture regards to men

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
So I've been reading a bit about Adam Smith, so come on capitalists, why should there be different classes in society?

I don't think capitalists say there should be classes. It just a way to group different people with different incomes and ways of making money together, so it is a consequence of the system that allows people to have the freedom to choose what to do and how to value each others contributions.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think capitalists say there should be classes...it is a consequence of the system How does advocating a system that creates classes not an advocation for classes?

That's pretty poor thinking, imo.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by ushomefree
Elaborate on your view, please. I'm interested. Still, I can not help but think, that you have a distorted view regarding open markets. Honestly, no pun intended. Help me understand your position.



This is true - at least the first half of your statement, in my opinion. World resources are in fact depleting, but this is largely due to - first! - a growing world population. The supply of food sources and oil, simply can not meet demand. The world is not a utopia, and it never will be. Second, government regulation is not the answer, in my opinion. Governments by nature suppress people. Governments do not liberate; governments only serve it's own needs to gain/acquire more power.

Have you ever attended a college level History 101 course? Honestly, I am just asking.

The question wasn't about freedom, it was about can humanity survive global capitalism. Capitalism requires constant growth and on a global scale that ultimately isn't sustainable.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.