Can we survive Global Capitalism?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

thats not true at all

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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'.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?