some versions of socialism may approach or be akin to slavery... but do we have use language like 'suicide'?
but you're right, it's foolish... and throughout time has been supported but morons like Einstein, Orwell, Shaw and other dumbasses
Suicide is an willful act that leads to self-destruction. Socialism has proven time and time again to be very self-destructive for the societies that choose it. If you want to suggest that my language is too strong, I'm ok with that. If you want to suggest that my language is "ridiculous", I suggest you take a look at history.
hey if you think building more roads, paving over animal habitats and polluting the earth with more car fumes is sustainable, then by all means! I just think its basic logic.
Its clear our current way of life isnt working. And its also clear, merely recycling or buying a hybrid isnt going to cut it
Basic logic shows the correlation betweens civilization and increased populations, more stable lifestyles, the profusion of knowledge and technology, and the millions of things you are taking for granted as you type "we should go back to hunting and gathering" on a computer.
But, hey, if you want to go back to hunting and gathering, by all means, knock yourself out. There are certainly arguments to be made for such a lifestyle. As another poster indicated, most of us will not be joining you. One can only wonder what you're waiting for. Perhaps you're saving up for a rifle....
What I see is that the future doesn't exist. We never have any power in the future. We only have power in the present. Therefore we delude ourselves when we use the "future" to justify doing something unethical in the only time we have...which is NOW. By deluding ourselves in such a way, we disguise our nefarious deeds and hide from our true intentions.
This is highly questionable logic. The future, in general, is the definition of potentiality. We are constantly realizing the future even if it is not, in fact, guaranteed. Using some ridiculous vision of the future to justify evils in the present is certainly corrupt and delusional. But doing something just because of a vision of the future is not corrupt at all.
I agree that we are cooperative in many functional ways. At the same time, charted human developmental stages show higher levels of human development, where humans operate wholly, and with integrity, as a unified individual system, unlike the general states of fragmentation that exist at this time. The majority at this time, operates in fragments, where one minute one is cooperative, and the next minute competitive or confrontational, based on conditioning and past brain-wiring rather than based on understanding and conscious choice. The more evolved holistic, integrity-based forms of awareness and resulting cooperation that I refer to, by being whole and integrity based, have evolved the ability to resolve dichotomy/contradiction, etc. into one harmonious system that resolves coersion and other such methods that contain fall-out and infringement. So, as our different views point to, "evolved" would be a relative term.
Ok -- I'm cool with this. I simply reject the concept of some kind of progressive "evolution" in this context. But in simple relative terms, I'm fine with it.
Fair enough. I understand that your ideals and principles are different from my own, or from many other board members who may see socialistic views as consistent with their own principles and ideals.
Fair enough, indeed. Those who "see socialistic views as consistent with their own principles and ideals" should live out those ideals, as many do. I have no problem with that.
In certain worldviews, people find they no longer have the choice but to live and operate in service to life, rather than in service of the self.
The self is alive.
Such individuals are not concerned with increasing wealth, but rather with increasing quality of life for others, in ways that are beyond financial.
First, the creation of wealth and the quality of life for self and others are tightly linked, not mutually exclusive. Second, those who wish to shun wealth and "increase quality of life for others, in ways that are beyond financial" should certainly do so, if that is their guiding principle.
Suicide is an willful act that leads to self-destruction. Socialism has proven time and time again to be very self-destructive for the societies that choose it. If you want to suggest that my language is too strong, I'm ok with that. If you want to suggest that my language is "ridiculous", I suggest you take a look at history.
And what exactly is our current way of life leading to? Self-destruction.
edit: I should add that I'm not exactly an advocate of socialism. I do subscribe to some very socialist ideas.
hey if you think building more roads, paving over animal habitats and polluting the earth with more car fumes is sustainable, then by all means! I just think its basic logic.
Its clear our current way of life isnt working. And its also clear, merely recycling or buying a hybrid isnt going to cut it
Aren't most roads socialist endeavors? Roads that aren't even needed are built and maintained, basically subsidizing the auto industry. The way things are now, there is no reason to develop technology that doesn't utilize roads.
What evidence do you have that "our" current way of life is leading to self-destruction? Who does "our" refer to?
Are you talking about the destruction of your life in America or are you talking about every human life?
I think if you look at the birth of capitalism in south America for example you will see many casualties, or indeed the food crisis now.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Are you talking about the destruction of your life in America or are you talking about every human life?
I'm talking about the level of destruction on all the lives in a given society.
I think if you look at the birth of capitalism in south America for example you will see many casualties or indeed the food crisis now.
Absolutely! No one is suggesting that capitalism is without its casualties. However, you cannot prove or disprove a contention regarding socialism with facts about capitalism.
I'm talking about the level of destruction on all the lives in a given society.
Absolutely! No one is suggesting that capitalism is without its casualties. However, you cannot prove or disprove a contention regarding socialism with facts about capitalism.
I must add that i am not an advocate of past socialism, from what i know of it, it was just as corrupt as capitalism is now, all about the rich amassing the wealth.
With capitalism though people seem to be under some illusion that everything is ok because they are doing ok, but what about all the people in the poorer countries and even the poor in our own countries that have been stepped on and still live in poverty. Capitalism to me is pure greed at the expense of others, and in that form it really is no good.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I must add that i am not an advocate of past socialism, from what i know of it, it was just as corrupt as capitalism is now, all about the rich amassing the wealth.
Not only that, socialism in many ways forbids the creation of new wealth.
With capitalism though people seem to be under some illusion that everything is ok because they are doing ok, but what about all the people in the poorer countries and even the poor in our own countries that have been stepped on and still live in poverty.
What about them? The default human condition is poverty. If one dislikes poverty, as I believe most do, then one needs to examine what it takes not to be poor. Capitalism does a better job at this as it encourages the creation of wealth as opposed to the consumption of wealth.
Capitalism to me is pure greed at the expense of others, and in that form it really is no good.
Capitalism is not "pure greed". Theft is pure greed. A greedy capitalist who cannot provide value to another person is going to be a very poor capitalist indeed.
Suicide is an willful act that leads to self-destruction. Socialism has proven time and time again to be very self-destructive for the societies that choose it. If you want to suggest that my language is too strong, I'm ok with that. If you want to suggest that my language is "ridiculous", I suggest you take a look at history.
I suggest you take a look at the history of Sweden
"The GDP per capita is high and the country is generally perceived as modern and liberal, with an organisational and corporate culture that is non-hierarchical and collectivist compared to its Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Nature conservation, environmental protection and energy efficiency are generally prioritized in policy making and embraced by the general public in Sweden"
although... i wouldn't say Sweden is entirely socialist... and that's a good thing... but a lot more should be collectivized in the USA, starting with health care.
In certain worldviews, people find they no longer have the choice but to live and operate in service to life, rather than in service of the self.
The self is alive.
Yes. In operating in service to life, within the worldviews I refer to, one also operates in service to the self. One operates in service to all of life, including the self. They don't operate in service to the self removed from the context of the whole in fragmentation. The distinction is big.
Such individuals are not concerned with increasing wealth, but rather with increasing quality of life for others, in ways that are beyond financial.
First, the creation of wealth and the quality of life for self and others are tightly linked, not mutually exclusive. Second, those who wish to shun wealth and "increase quality of life for others, in ways that are beyond financial" should certainly do so, if that is their guiding principle.
Having one's basic needs covered is tightly linked with quality of life, in my opinion, AND in the theory of self-actualization.
98% of the population in North America is currently not self-actualized because they are not meeting their base needs which are needed to support self-actualization, even though many have 'luxuries' provided by money, such as the newest technological advances.
One must develop the Self through meeting their basic needs, before one is truly centered or grounded. One may have all the "wealth" in the world, and have a crippled self, and therefore cannot actually experience the true peace, happiness, freedom or the enhanced ability to embrace experience that the outer manifestations of wealth are often hoped to bring the individual. On the other hand, it takes relatively little money to meet one's basic needs, and one can become self-actualized, thereby acquiring peace, happiness, freedom and the enhanced ability to embrace experience.
Again, keep in mind, I only suggest socialist systems being created between those who see such visions and the validity of such systems in their own lives.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
To add to my last message, when one abuses nature, and creates irresponsibly (raping and pillaging of the earth, polluting and creating negative consequences for self-ish gain) one reveals that one is not self-actualized or self-valuing, but rather one shows that one is fragmented, imbalanced and maladaptive.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What about them? The default human condition is poverty. If one dislikes poverty, as I believe most do, then one needs to examine what it takes not to be poor. Capitalism does a better job at this as it encourages the creation of wealth as opposed to the consumption of wealth.
Capitalism by it very own nature needs the poor to step on. I do not see the people in all the countries where capitalism has been violently bought in as now being rich, the poor are even poorer than they were before. So i can't get my head round how capitalism is so great.
Capitalism is not "pure greed". Theft is pure greed. A greedy capitalist who cannot provide value to another person is going to be a very poor capitalist indeed.
So you admit someone somewhere, is being ripped of at the expense of the capitalist?
I think what you are talking about when you mention capitalism is the idea of it not the what we actually have, Socialism it is also a good idea, it is the people who actually bought it into being and sat at the top that were corrupt and destroyed the idea exactly the same as capitalism.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
What evidence do you have that "our" current way of life is leading to self-destruction? Who does "our" refer to?
How can it not lead to our own destruction? Just take a look at history
Or just take a look around you. We are polluting our water, our air, chopping down our forests. We're basically destroying our world. The number of extinct or endangered species has gone up dramatically since the industrial revolution and has no precedent in the history of biology. You cannot deny the industry is slowly but surely raping, plundering and killing our planet.
But you're right, capitalism does increase wealth. Wealthier people can buy more things (things they don't really need) and more things are produced. Meanwhile, the advertisement business is a billion dollar business encouraging (or brainwashing?) people into buying all these things. It's become a habit. And people still pretend that recycling will save the world. It's a small step, but there are many more steps down that path people aren't willing to take.
So will we keep taking from our planet until there is nothing more to take to fulfill our materialistic needs? Will we keep plundering it so we can be wealthier?
This current way of life might work for you, but to me it's equally suicidal. And that was my point.
However, you cannot prove or disprove a contention regarding socialism with facts about capitalism.
I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm saying it's equally suicidal but from a different perspective.
Capitalism will fail and lead to self-destruction if we cannot find a sustainable way of life. It will lead to more pollution, more industry, more greed.
In other words, I may see socialism as suicide, but I certainly have no right to stop someone from committing suicide. I only have a right to prevent them from taking me with them.
Ah, so I have a right to prevent people from taking me with them as well? What right would that be?
Yes. In operating in service to life, within the worldviews I refer to, one also operates in service to the self. One operates in service to all of life, including the self. They don't operate in service to the self removed from the context of the whole in fragmentation. The distinction is big.
I agree with this contention as you word it here.
Having one's basic needs covered is tightly linked with quality of life, in my opinion, AND in the theory of self-actualization.
"Basic needs" is not a very meaningful term.
98% of the population in North America is currently not self-actualized because they are not meeting their base needs which are needed to support self-actualization, even though many have 'luxuries' provided by money, such as the newest technological advances.
Where does this 98% number come from?
One must develop the Self through meeting their basic needs, before one is truly centered or grounded. One may have all the "wealth" in the world, and have a crippled self, and therefore cannot actually experience the true peace, happiness, freedom or the enhanced ability to embrace experience that the outer manifestations of wealth are often hoped to bring the individual.
Once can have none of the wealth in the world and the same can be true. One can have some wealth and the same can be true. Wealth will not bring you these things. Wealth works best when it stems from these things.
How can it not lead to our own destruction? Just take a look at history
Or just take a look around you. We are polluting our water, our air, chopping down our forests. We're basically destroying our world. The number of extinct or endangered species has gone up dramatically since the industrial revolution and has no precedent in the history of biology. You cannot deny the industry is slowly but surely raping, plundering and killing our planet.
"No precedent in the history of biology"? That's ridiculous. There have been greater periods of extinction numerous times in world history. Not to suggest such periods are good in any way, but there's certainly many precedents.
I do not deny that human consumption is causing much harm to our planet. But if I'm looking for an economic system that 1) punishes waste and inefficiency 2) holds consumers and producers accountable to their choices and 3) creates checks on consumption via prices, then capitalism is certainly far better than any other system available to us. Perhaps you'd prefer a system wherein governmental edicts guide consumption and production, but I think you'd be highly disappointed, in terms of environmental protection.
But you're right, capitalism does increase wealth. Wealthier people can buy more things (things they don't really need) and more things are produced.
You don't "need" the computer you're typing on. Why don't you get rid of it?
Meanwhile, the advertisement business is a billion dollar business encouraging (or brainwashing?) people into buying all these things.
Again, the free systems of advertisement and viewership are far surperior to prescribed brainwashing. It seems silly to complain about largely ineffective and unseen corporate advertisement in a capitalist system as opposed to say forced standardized schooling in a socialist system.
It's become a habit. And people still pretend that recycling will save the world. It's a small step, but there are many more steps down that path people aren't willing to take.
Bullshit. People like you said 10 years ago that no one would recycle unless they were forced to. Yet people do it. Furthermore, people are now taking all kinds of steps individually and collectively to lessen their impact. Certainly there is much that can be done that isn't being done, but environmental alarmists have about as bad a track record as consumers.
So will we keep taking from our planet until there is nothing more to take to fulfill our materialistic needs? Will we keep plundering it so we can be wealthier?
See -- if this is the crux of your argument against capitalism, it's a pretty shitty argument. Capitalism links consumption to value, not consumption to rights. Placing checks in the way of consumption is truly the path to sustainable living.
This current way of life might work for you, but to me it's equally suicidal. And that was my point.
Then I completely support your right not to live by it.
Ah, so I have a right to prevent people from taking me with them as well? What right would that be?
The right to self-determination. If you feel that capitalism is actively harming you, I completely support your right to a) defend yourself and b) seek out systems that you feel work better for you.
So you admit someone somewhere, is being ripped of at the expense of the capitalist?
Of course. Someone, somewhere, is being ripped off at the expense of (insert any noun here).
I think what you are talking about when you mention capitalism is the idea of it not the what we actually have, Socialism it is also a good idea, it is the people who actually bought it into being and sat at the top that were corrupt and destroyed the idea exactly the same as capitalism.
Sure. It's just that in a true capitalistic environment, there isn't really a "top". There are the wealthy, certainly, but the wealthy aren't really able to control society in a capitalistic system. That's what they need government for, and that's why our government is so corrupt.
Once can have none of the wealth in the world and the same can be true. One can have some wealth and the same can be true. Wealth will not bring you these things. Wealth works best when it stems from these things.
By basic needs, I refer to Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In his theory, one must meet their base needs before they can meet their higher needs which is necessary for one to become "Self"-actualized. Self actualized refers to integrating one's self in system where one has a clearly defined and differentiated Self from the masses.
Also, the 98% also comes from this view, wherein only 2% of the population are considered self-actualized. The whopping majority is considered fragmented, and hooked into others in a way that they are not truly individual with a differentiated Self.
Due to the unindividuated nature of the average person, and due to the lacking whole and boundaried Self in such cases, individuals find themselves hooked into dramas and life situations in all kinds of ways where they feel powerless to live as they feel their inner dreams dictate. They are unconsciously compelled into scenarios that go contrary to their conscious dreams and visions. This lacking wholeness is currently common and seems "normal", which further reinforces the idea that wholeness and following one's dreams is a utopian and impractical ideal. Abraham Maslow questioned why it is that the majority aspires to mediocrity.
Due to these dynamics, and that most are unaware of them since they are acted out unconsciously, they can be manipulated with advertising and the promise of a "better way". Such a promise becomes a glamorous and illusory replacement to most for this lacking self, which perpetuates the lack of Self on a wide-scale.
edit: I absolutely agree that wealth works best when it stems from peace, happiness, and enhanced ability to embrace life experience, etc.... When one self-actualizes, individuates, and finds a measure of such experience, one flows with life, and one can create from their true potential, and creating on a big scale flows easily...thereby creating wealth, or whatever one's dreams are flows easily.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I would like to add that the unidividuated self also leads one into illusory ideals that socialist systems will work containing a mass amount of fragmented and imbalanced individuals.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
To add to my last message, when one abuses nature, and creates irresponsibly (raping and pillaging of the earth, polluting and creating negative consequences for self-ish gain) one reveals that one is not self-actualized or self-valuing, but rather one shows that one is fragmented, imbalanced and maladaptive.
And to add to this, we also reveal our fragmentation and self-ish or non-actualized natures by our inability to practise what we preach. We must enact environmental responsibility, as opposed to merely talking about environmental responsibility. As long as we perpetuate environmental raping and pillaging ourselves, through the capitalist system through our own over-consumption, while speaking of a better way in the future, wherein we expect others to change, we reveal our own justifications for the unjustifiable in the Now where our power exists . We also illustrate that we are not engaging our own power.
Those who truly engage their own power take responsibility, rather than blame/judge.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"No precedent in the history of biology"? That's ridiculous. There have been greater periods of extinction numerous times in world history. Not to suggest such periods are good in any way, but there's certainly many precedents.
Actually, I'm not sure there is a precedent. I saw a documentary on this a while ago, and the rate at which species are becoming extinct is abnormally high in the history of biology. And our activity is an undeniable factor, if not the main factor. But anyway, this is an different discussion and adds little to this topic. And either way, citing an ice age or the extinction of dinosaurs as a precedent is rather omnious, don't you agree?
I do not deny that human consumption is causing much harm to our planet.
And do you agree that human consumption is partly, if not heavily, pushed forward by capitalism?
But if I'm looking for an economic system that 1) punishes waste and inefficiency 2) holds consumers and producers accountable to their choices and 3) creates checks on consumption via prices, then capitalism is certainly far better than any other system available to us.
Perhaps it is far better, but that doesn't mean it's good or even acceptable.
I can't say I'm really impressed with a system in which modern day slave conditions are still a reality. And indeed it punishes waste, but it also stimulates production or said differently, the creation of waste.
I also don't see how a purely capitalist system is better than a mixed economy.
Perhaps you'd prefer a system wherein governmental edicts guide consumption and production, but I think you'd be highly disappointed, in terms of environmental protection.
No thanks.
You don't "need" the computer you're typing on. Why don't you get rid of it?
Actually, I do need it and it's not mine to get rid of.
Again, the free systems of advertisement and viewership are far surperior to prescribed brainwashing. It seems silly to complain about largely ineffective and unseen corporate advertisement in a capitalist system as opposed to say forced standardized schooling in a socialist system.
Prescribed brainwashing or free brainwashing, I think they both suck.
I never said I'm in favour of a socialist system, by the way. I've also noticed that your defense of capitalism usually starts from a ideal capitalist system and not from a real capitalist system. In reality, there's abuse of power, disregard of human life, theft... in our capitalist world as well. When you talk about socialism, however, you never argue from the ideal point of view but rather from a previous system, which failed. Or am I mistaken.
Bullshit. People like you said 10 years ago that no one would recycle unless they were forced to. Yet people do it. Furthermore, people are now taking all kinds of steps individually and collectively to lessen their impact. Certainly there is much that can be done that isn't being done, but environmental alarmists have about as bad a track record as consumers.
Well, if it takes 10 years before people start to recylce then I'm starting to wonder if it isn't a lost cause altogether. Because like I said, these little things are good, but they're only a small part.
See -- if this is the crux of your argument against capitalism, it's a pretty shitty argument. Capitalism links consumption to value, not consumption to rights. Placing checks in the way of consumption is truly the path to sustainable living.
This isn't a capitalistic ideal world, it's a corrupted world where people steal, plunder, kill, exploit for profits. Today's capitalism is truly the path towards a bigger gap between the rich and the poor. If the essentials become more valuable and they're in the hands of the corporations, only the wealthiest will be able to obtain them. it's almost as if the system is designed to keep the poor poor. I wonder if you'd feel the same way about capitalism if you were the one being exploited.
Also, to come back to your previous point, how is the Coca-Cola company being punished for waste? It uses almost 300 billion liters of water, 60% of which is used to clean machines, bottles (this is the average of all Coco Cola factories, at some factories the number is even higher)... It is polluting ground water in several countries, countries where people cannot even meet their basic water needs and depend mostly on agriculture.
There is a shortage of water in certain parts of the world (20 -25% of the world population have no access to clean drinking water), yet the Coca Cola company wastes approximately 60% of the water it uses, it spoils the ground water of local farming communities... Yeah, capitalism might lead to sustainable living... once it's too late.
Then I completely support your right not to live by it.
Thanks, I can use a little support
The right to self-determination. If you feel that capitalism is actively harming you, I completely support your right to a) defend yourself and b) seek out systems that you feel work better for you.
You seem to be advocating for a mixed system wherein capitalism operates along with targetted socialistic approaches (i.e. many European states, some American regions, etc). Am I misunderstanding you?
And either way, citing an ice age or the extinction of dinosaurs as a precedent is rather omnious, don't you agree?
Not at all. If it were as ominous as you imply, we wouldn't be here.
And do you agree that human consumption is partly, if not heavily, pushed forward by capitalism?
Sometimes, certainly. Capitalism, however, punishes waste and inefficiency. It does not push forward consumption for the sake of consumption. It pushes consumption for the sake of value.
I can't say I'm really impressed with a system in which modern day slave conditions are still a reality.
What alternative to you support to eliminate "modern day slave conditions"?
I also don't see how a purely capitalist system is better than a mixed economy.
"Better" implies a standard. Give me a standard.
Actually, I do need it
No you don't. You'd live without it.
Prescribed brainwashing or free brainwashing, I think they both suck.
They both do suck. "Free" brainwashing, however, can be avoiding without punishment.
I've also noticed that your defense of capitalism usually starts from a ideal capitalist system and not from a real capitalist system. In reality, there's abuse of power, disregard of human life, theft... in our capitalist world as well. When you talk about socialism, however, you never argue from the ideal point of view but rather from a previous system, which failed. Or am I mistaken.
I'm not arguing against socialism in terms of practical implemenations. I try to keep these discussions philosophical as best I can, and I think anyone here can attest to that. Certainly comparing "ideal" capitalism to practical socialism (or vise versa) is foolish.
This isn't a capitalistic ideal world, it's a corrupted world where people steal, plunder, kill, exploit for profits.
Often institutionally.
Also, to come back to your previous point, how is the Coca-Cola company being punished for waste?
It isn't, because its consumers don't see it as wasteful, and those who might offer a better alternative simply complain instead of compete.
You seem to be advocating for a mixed system wherein capitalism operates along with targetted socialistic approaches (i.e. many European states, some American regions, etc). Am I misunderstanding you?
I'm not sure about Collin, but this is my thinking.........
I personally believe that a mixed system is best in that some things are too precious to trust entirely to market forces, while others too basic to trust to the individuals sense of collective enterprise. In other words, one can be over-motivated by self-interest to the detriment of others, just as surely as one can be under-motivated. Plus there needs to be some basic sense of justice built into the system.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Comments
God is irrelevant. Rhino is all.
Yes sir. I'll never let my self slip again.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'll let it pass this time - but next time, you're scrubbing the rink floor.
When did I become a dictator? :eek: It's true - socialism can't exist without a dictator! :(
Suicide is an willful act that leads to self-destruction. Socialism has proven time and time again to be very self-destructive for the societies that choose it. If you want to suggest that my language is too strong, I'm ok with that. If you want to suggest that my language is "ridiculous", I suggest you take a look at history.
Basic logic shows the correlation betweens civilization and increased populations, more stable lifestyles, the profusion of knowledge and technology, and the millions of things you are taking for granted as you type "we should go back to hunting and gathering" on a computer.
But, hey, if you want to go back to hunting and gathering, by all means, knock yourself out. There are certainly arguments to be made for such a lifestyle. As another poster indicated, most of us will not be joining you. One can only wonder what you're waiting for. Perhaps you're saving up for a rifle....
This is highly questionable logic. The future, in general, is the definition of potentiality. We are constantly realizing the future even if it is not, in fact, guaranteed. Using some ridiculous vision of the future to justify evils in the present is certainly corrupt and delusional. But doing something just because of a vision of the future is not corrupt at all.
Ok -- I'm cool with this. I simply reject the concept of some kind of progressive "evolution" in this context. But in simple relative terms, I'm fine with it.
Fair enough, indeed. Those who "see socialistic views as consistent with their own principles and ideals" should live out those ideals, as many do. I have no problem with that.
The self is alive.
First, the creation of wealth and the quality of life for self and others are tightly linked, not mutually exclusive. Second, those who wish to shun wealth and "increase quality of life for others, in ways that are beyond financial" should certainly do so, if that is their guiding principle.
And what exactly is our current way of life leading to? Self-destruction.
edit: I should add that I'm not exactly an advocate of socialism. I do subscribe to some very socialist ideas.
naděje umírá poslední
What evidence do you have that "our" current way of life is leading to self-destruction? Who does "our" refer to?
Aren't most roads socialist endeavors? Roads that aren't even needed are built and maintained, basically subsidizing the auto industry. The way things are now, there is no reason to develop technology that doesn't utilize roads.
Are you talking about the destruction of your life in America or are you talking about every human life?
I think if you look at the birth of capitalism in south America for example you will see many casualties, or indeed the food crisis now.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I'm talking about the level of destruction on all the lives in a given society.
Absolutely! No one is suggesting that capitalism is without its casualties. However, you cannot prove or disprove a contention regarding socialism with facts about capitalism.
I must add that i am not an advocate of past socialism, from what i know of it, it was just as corrupt as capitalism is now, all about the rich amassing the wealth.
With capitalism though people seem to be under some illusion that everything is ok because they are doing ok, but what about all the people in the poorer countries and even the poor in our own countries that have been stepped on and still live in poverty. Capitalism to me is pure greed at the expense of others, and in that form it really is no good.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Not only that, socialism in many ways forbids the creation of new wealth.
What about them? The default human condition is poverty. If one dislikes poverty, as I believe most do, then one needs to examine what it takes not to be poor. Capitalism does a better job at this as it encourages the creation of wealth as opposed to the consumption of wealth.
Capitalism is not "pure greed". Theft is pure greed. A greedy capitalist who cannot provide value to another person is going to be a very poor capitalist indeed.
I suggest you take a look at the history of Sweden
"The GDP per capita is high and the country is generally perceived as modern and liberal, with an organisational and corporate culture that is non-hierarchical and collectivist compared to its Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Nature conservation, environmental protection and energy efficiency are generally prioritized in policy making and embraced by the general public in Sweden"
although... i wouldn't say Sweden is entirely socialist... and that's a good thing... but a lot more should be collectivized in the USA, starting with health care.
Since we're talking economics, this link makes the most sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden
Having one's basic needs covered is tightly linked with quality of life, in my opinion, AND in the theory of self-actualization.
98% of the population in North America is currently not self-actualized because they are not meeting their base needs which are needed to support self-actualization, even though many have 'luxuries' provided by money, such as the newest technological advances.
One must develop the Self through meeting their basic needs, before one is truly centered or grounded. One may have all the "wealth" in the world, and have a crippled self, and therefore cannot actually experience the true peace, happiness, freedom or the enhanced ability to embrace experience that the outer manifestations of wealth are often hoped to bring the individual. On the other hand, it takes relatively little money to meet one's basic needs, and one can become self-actualized, thereby acquiring peace, happiness, freedom and the enhanced ability to embrace experience.
Again, keep in mind, I only suggest socialist systems being created between those who see such visions and the validity of such systems in their own lives.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Capitalism by it very own nature needs the poor to step on. I do not see the people in all the countries where capitalism has been violently bought in as now being rich, the poor are even poorer than they were before. So i can't get my head round how capitalism is so great.
So you admit someone somewhere, is being ripped of at the expense of the capitalist?
I think what you are talking about when you mention capitalism is the idea of it not the what we actually have, Socialism it is also a good idea, it is the people who actually bought it into being and sat at the top that were corrupt and destroyed the idea exactly the same as capitalism.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
How can it not lead to our own destruction? Just take a look at history
Or just take a look around you. We are polluting our water, our air, chopping down our forests. We're basically destroying our world. The number of extinct or endangered species has gone up dramatically since the industrial revolution and has no precedent in the history of biology. You cannot deny the industry is slowly but surely raping, plundering and killing our planet.
But you're right, capitalism does increase wealth. Wealthier people can buy more things (things they don't really need) and more things are produced. Meanwhile, the advertisement business is a billion dollar business encouraging (or brainwashing?) people into buying all these things. It's become a habit. And people still pretend that recycling will save the world. It's a small step, but there are many more steps down that path people aren't willing to take.
So will we keep taking from our planet until there is nothing more to take to fulfill our materialistic needs? Will we keep plundering it so we can be wealthier?
This current way of life might work for you, but to me it's equally suicidal. And that was my point.
I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm saying it's equally suicidal but from a different perspective.
Capitalism will fail and lead to self-destruction if we cannot find a sustainable way of life. It will lead to more pollution, more industry, more greed.
I think it's suicide but on a larger scale.
Ah, so I have a right to prevent people from taking me with them as well? What right would that be?
naděje umírá poslední
I agree with this contention as you word it here.
"Basic needs" is not a very meaningful term.
Where does this 98% number come from?
Once can have none of the wealth in the world and the same can be true. One can have some wealth and the same can be true. Wealth will not bring you these things. Wealth works best when it stems from these things.
"No precedent in the history of biology"? That's ridiculous. There have been greater periods of extinction numerous times in world history. Not to suggest such periods are good in any way, but there's certainly many precedents.
I do not deny that human consumption is causing much harm to our planet. But if I'm looking for an economic system that 1) punishes waste and inefficiency 2) holds consumers and producers accountable to their choices and 3) creates checks on consumption via prices, then capitalism is certainly far better than any other system available to us. Perhaps you'd prefer a system wherein governmental edicts guide consumption and production, but I think you'd be highly disappointed, in terms of environmental protection.
You don't "need" the computer you're typing on. Why don't you get rid of it?
Again, the free systems of advertisement and viewership are far surperior to prescribed brainwashing. It seems silly to complain about largely ineffective and unseen corporate advertisement in a capitalist system as opposed to say forced standardized schooling in a socialist system.
Bullshit. People like you said 10 years ago that no one would recycle unless they were forced to. Yet people do it. Furthermore, people are now taking all kinds of steps individually and collectively to lessen their impact. Certainly there is much that can be done that isn't being done, but environmental alarmists have about as bad a track record as consumers.
See -- if this is the crux of your argument against capitalism, it's a pretty shitty argument. Capitalism links consumption to value, not consumption to rights. Placing checks in the way of consumption is truly the path to sustainable living.
Then I completely support your right not to live by it.
The right to self-determination. If you feel that capitalism is actively harming you, I completely support your right to a) defend yourself and b) seek out systems that you feel work better for you.
Of course. Someone, somewhere, is being ripped off at the expense of (insert any noun here).
Sure. It's just that in a true capitalistic environment, there isn't really a "top". There are the wealthy, certainly, but the wealthy aren't really able to control society in a capitalistic system. That's what they need government for, and that's why our government is so corrupt.
Also, the 98% also comes from this view, wherein only 2% of the population are considered self-actualized. The whopping majority is considered fragmented, and hooked into others in a way that they are not truly individual with a differentiated Self.
Due to the unindividuated nature of the average person, and due to the lacking whole and boundaried Self in such cases, individuals find themselves hooked into dramas and life situations in all kinds of ways where they feel powerless to live as they feel their inner dreams dictate. They are unconsciously compelled into scenarios that go contrary to their conscious dreams and visions. This lacking wholeness is currently common and seems "normal", which further reinforces the idea that wholeness and following one's dreams is a utopian and impractical ideal. Abraham Maslow questioned why it is that the majority aspires to mediocrity.
Due to these dynamics, and that most are unaware of them since they are acted out unconsciously, they can be manipulated with advertising and the promise of a "better way". Such a promise becomes a glamorous and illusory replacement to most for this lacking self, which perpetuates the lack of Self on a wide-scale.
edit: I absolutely agree that wealth works best when it stems from peace, happiness, and enhanced ability to embrace life experience, etc.... When one self-actualizes, individuates, and finds a measure of such experience, one flows with life, and one can create from their true potential, and creating on a big scale flows easily...thereby creating wealth, or whatever one's dreams are flows easily.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Those who truly engage their own power take responsibility, rather than blame/judge.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Actually, I'm not sure there is a precedent. I saw a documentary on this a while ago, and the rate at which species are becoming extinct is abnormally high in the history of biology. And our activity is an undeniable factor, if not the main factor. But anyway, this is an different discussion and adds little to this topic. And either way, citing an ice age or the extinction of dinosaurs as a precedent is rather omnious, don't you agree?
And do you agree that human consumption is partly, if not heavily, pushed forward by capitalism?
Perhaps it is far better, but that doesn't mean it's good or even acceptable.
I can't say I'm really impressed with a system in which modern day slave conditions are still a reality. And indeed it punishes waste, but it also stimulates production or said differently, the creation of waste.
I also don't see how a purely capitalist system is better than a mixed economy.
No thanks.
Actually, I do need it and it's not mine to get rid of.
Prescribed brainwashing or free brainwashing, I think they both suck.
I never said I'm in favour of a socialist system, by the way. I've also noticed that your defense of capitalism usually starts from a ideal capitalist system and not from a real capitalist system. In reality, there's abuse of power, disregard of human life, theft... in our capitalist world as well. When you talk about socialism, however, you never argue from the ideal point of view but rather from a previous system, which failed. Or am I mistaken.
Well, if it takes 10 years before people start to recylce then I'm starting to wonder if it isn't a lost cause altogether. Because like I said, these little things are good, but they're only a small part.
This isn't a capitalistic ideal world, it's a corrupted world where people steal, plunder, kill, exploit for profits. Today's capitalism is truly the path towards a bigger gap between the rich and the poor. If the essentials become more valuable and they're in the hands of the corporations, only the wealthiest will be able to obtain them. it's almost as if the system is designed to keep the poor poor. I wonder if you'd feel the same way about capitalism if you were the one being exploited.
Also, to come back to your previous point, how is the Coca-Cola company being punished for waste? It uses almost 300 billion liters of water, 60% of which is used to clean machines, bottles (this is the average of all Coco Cola factories, at some factories the number is even higher)... It is polluting ground water in several countries, countries where people cannot even meet their basic water needs and depend mostly on agriculture.
There is a shortage of water in certain parts of the world (20 -25% of the world population have no access to clean drinking water), yet the Coca Cola company wastes approximately 60% of the water it uses, it spoils the ground water of local farming communities... Yeah, capitalism might lead to sustainable living... once it's too late.
Thanks, I can use a little support
Of course it's harming me. Fuck option b
naděje umírá poslední
You seem to be advocating for a mixed system wherein capitalism operates along with targetted socialistic approaches (i.e. many European states, some American regions, etc). Am I misunderstanding you?
Not at all. If it were as ominous as you imply, we wouldn't be here.
Sometimes, certainly. Capitalism, however, punishes waste and inefficiency. It does not push forward consumption for the sake of consumption. It pushes consumption for the sake of value.
What alternative to you support to eliminate "modern day slave conditions"?
"Better" implies a standard. Give me a standard.
No you don't. You'd live without it.
They both do suck. "Free" brainwashing, however, can be avoiding without punishment.
I'm not arguing against socialism in terms of practical implemenations. I try to keep these discussions philosophical as best I can, and I think anyone here can attest to that. Certainly comparing "ideal" capitalism to practical socialism (or vise versa) is foolish.
Often institutionally.
It isn't, because its consumers don't see it as wasteful, and those who might offer a better alternative simply complain instead of compete.
You sound like Coca Cola.
I'm not sure about Collin, but this is my thinking.........
I personally believe that a mixed system is best in that some things are too precious to trust entirely to market forces, while others too basic to trust to the individuals sense of collective enterprise. In other words, one can be over-motivated by self-interest to the detriment of others, just as surely as one can be under-motivated. Plus there needs to be some basic sense of justice built into the system.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein