Dog 3000
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 19:52
|
Saddam called himself a socialist. The economy in Iraq was entirely state-controlled, though in truth it was closer to a "mafia economy" than anything else.
At any rate I never said you were "Saddam's brother" or anything like that.
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Technology!
Sep 10, 2003, 19:55
|
The obvious answer to that is that while the market is busy 'correcting' itself, aeons can go by with select few 'enterprising' people profiting at great expense to the environment and other people. Usually far away from the 'gainful' epicentre.
Capitalism, however it is dressed up, is an imperfect totality, where survival of the richest maintains it's hold, and the world turns to the tune of the rich. I cannot honestly see how corporate croneyism can become detached from the Capitalist reality.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Technology!
Sep 10, 2003, 19:56
|
If it's true that everything is focused on the short term, then in the long term it will be a self-correcting problem as I keep pointing out. At some point the long-term issues are unavoidable. The question is whether it reaches a crisis point where there is no recovery possible, or whether the system continues to adapt before the crisis point is reached.
We can obviously see the crisis looming, and if we can see it so can "the capitalists."
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 19:59
|
Ah, I'm 'regulated' for my own good! But who's regulating the rich feckers who own all the land i could have the smallest patch of, who don't even LIVE there? See what i mean about 'freedom'?
And my 'idyllic' lifestyle may not be someone elses. I can only talk about freedom from my point of view,and I don't see it. I'm 'free' to be a consumer,but not free to be self sufficient. How is that?
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Technology!
Sep 10, 2003, 19:59
|
Of course "capitalism" is imperfect -- because humans are imperfect. Any system we can devise and implement is limited by the human factor.
It's really a relative question -- are market mechanisms "relatively" better than state control? I think so. And it seems to me "anarchism" is just market principles taken to their furthest extreme (I don't believe doing away with the state will turn people into Utopianoids who will share everything and contribute unselfishly to the common good. That's just not human nature.)
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 20:03
|
Obviously there are limits on "freedom." As I keep saying -- it's RELATIVE, not absolute.
"Self sufficiency" may be a pipe dream. It is abundantly clear to me that not everyone can live in a state of self-sufficiency because it's not a very efficient way to live and there is limited space. Specialization is what makes it possible to support the population we have in the limited space we have.
We really can't go backwards to "the good old days" without going back to the population level we had in the past.
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 20:10
|
|
So our freedom is 'relative', and conditional upon what is imposed upon us by the markets? That still sounds like a cop-out to me. Lowimpact living is perfectly do-able, and I would take up less realistic space by seeing to my own patch, or in a co-op, than I would by being part of an economic machine that flattened and burned millons of hectares to graze cattle to make 'popular' fast food for top level profits, not nutritional needs.
|
morfe lux
|
Re: Technology!
Sep 10, 2003, 20:17
|
|
I used to live in a vilage with 16 houses. We had about a mile square of land, on plots. Everybody worked, but the when we had a power cut, everyone would chip in and help. When we had a large harvesy in the allotments, everyone would profit. Harvest festival kept us in veg for months. The man don the road kept sheep, in a paddock. more than enough for the population of about 100 people. he main reason people worked wa to pay rent to landlords, and for entertainmnet/transport. What I'm saying is that profiteers use the 'it's human nature to not co-operate' argument, whilst simultaneously strengthening a cult of 'individualism' (materialism) which takes normal human selfishness and amplifies it to the nth degree, literally training people from birth to be suspicious of anything that doesn't have a dollar sign attached to it.
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Marx again
Sep 10, 2003, 20:22
|
Markets are a human system composed of consumers as well as producers. It's not some "them" doing it, it is the collective "us."
They wouldn't be flattening the rain forrests to make hamburgers if people didn't want to eat hamburgers. Again it all comes back to human issues -- people are basically lazy and selfish when they feel they can get away with it ("tragedy of the commons.") Fast food is easier than getting up before sunrise to milk your own cows. That's why most people prefer it to "self sufficiency."
And obviously there are efforts underway to "educate" and "be role models" and reject junk food and the problems that it causes. The trend will probably continue. McDonald's is actually a good example of a non-sustainable business model -- they can't keep opening more stores forever like they plan to. They're already cannibalizing their sales by opening too many restuarants in the states (ask any McD's manager who their biggest competition is and they'll tell you "that other McD's down the street!")
|
morfe lux
|
Born free.
Sep 10, 2003, 20:27
|
|
What a load of bollocks. Morelike born into someone else's pocket until I can either be 1. Lucky or 2. Clever and industrious enough to buy myself back, by which time I'll be 2/3rds of the way at least through my life. But now I'm told that I have to live in a box because the world isn't big enough to house my self-sufficiency, meanwhile Lord Fuck owns a space the size of London and shoots people if they walk on it, meanwhile he lives in a bigger box than me for the good of himself. They say (capitalists) that the 'free' world doesn't expect an individual to be another man's slave, or another man to be a slave of mine. What a fucking whopping lie!!!!
|
