|
U-Know! Forum » What is better than Capitalism? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 23:12
|
||
|
"Also, I believe we are 'socially engineered' from birth, by the Market." The market is "us", it's not a "thing outside of us." Agreed, I should have said more correctly, that social engineering is apparent, that's why billions of monetary units have been spent on advertising and deep-psych intrusive sloganeering, cultural stereotyping and wotnot. One of my sick pleasures is heaing an adveriser defending his sickly role as 'consumer informant' when she knows full well that she's acting on behalf of a corporation that wants o shift as many units as possible, and the cost of advertising psychology and space has to be met. Tobbacco companies come to mind.
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 23:19
|
||
|
"The idea that 1) systems are self-correcting (if the bus driver is a maniac he will crash the bus and kill himself, "problem solved")" That's simplistic, and forgetting that the bus driver may only be there because he can afford to be there, and that his passengers will die also. " and 2) that there is a "natural" competitive instinct among animals living in an environment with finite resources (which is always the case to some degree)" Many capitalists argue that resources aren't finite and act according to their belief, not the actuality? "and that 3) systems evolve as conditions change . . . are all based on a "natural" philosophy that sees humans as part of the "natural world", not separate from it." Nuclear war would sort that one out! It only takes one madman to press the button, but it takes more 'quiet' people to allow the thing to be built. I believe that human nature isn't wholly responsible for nuclear proliferation, paranoia and power politics are in contravention to so the'natural order', surely?
|
|||
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 10, 2003, 23:58
|
||
|
over the last 20 years, life expectancies in HALF of Africa, and much of central asia (bangladesh etc) have actively FALLEN because of growing impoverishment and an increasing divide between rich and poor countries. i think I may have slightly misinterpreted what you meant by 'cultural' befoe, but i still don't think that thi situation can b realistically described as such - unless you mean the culture of pverty.
|
|||
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 11, 2003, 00:02
|
||
|
"I believe that human nature isn't wholly responsible for nuclear proliferation, paranoia and power politics are in contravention to so the'natural order', surely?" If humans aren't responsible than "what" is? How can anything humans do contradict the natural order? Aren't we a part of it? For that matter, what ISN'T part of "the natural order"? Even aliens (if they exist) are creatures of "nature" aren't they? (Albeit an "extra-terrestrial" nature.) If we blow ourselves up, Mama always has the dolphins. And cockroaches, they can survive anything. ;-) (You're not one of those nasty Judeo-Christians who believe "De Lawd gave us dominion over the plants & animals" are you?) ;-) "Power politics" is an interesting subject to ponder though. There does seem to be "something" that separates us from animals, and I think that's "symbolic thinking." Language and stuff, the ability to think "abstractly" and "theoretically." But I suspect this difference from the animals is more one of "quantity" than "quality." We's still animals, just a lot smarter. For example dogs make different sounds and "gestures" to communicate with each other -- they're just very simple (leave me alone, let's fuck, etc.) I think that's a primitive form of "language."
|
|||
|
Dog 3000 4611 posts |
Sep 11, 2003, 00:22
|
||
|
Where are you getting your figures? Life expectancy in Bangladesh was 58 years in 1996, up from 48 years in 1980 (a 20.83% increase.) http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/psd/compete.nsf/0/a376ada61602e30b852564e40068dad3?OpenDocument If you have a better source let's see the figures. As for "culture of poverty" that's one way to describe the problem. Technology changes faster than culture does.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 11, 2003, 00:37
|
||
|
i refer the honourable gentleman to the answer i gave above - almost directly preceeding the bit you quote n fact - "in a society where the majority of the population (what might be called the working-class) are actually in control for the first time we can produce things based on self-identified NEED. We have the materials and technology today to provide everyone in this country with a decent education, home, health, basic security. On a world scale there is much more than enough food to feed the planet, wealth redistribution would save millions of lives a year, the wiping out of appaling, but SIMPLE, diseases like measles are very very easilly achievable. " Me, i'm a libertarian socialist, and i think there are a shitload of peole who want to change the system - look at the numbers outside dsei or cancun tonight, just for starrters. I think i (at least try to) fill out some of the what you replace it with bits in other posts.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 11, 2003, 00:53
|
||
|
fair play on bangladesh, (tho 96 is quite out of date, recent droughts and disasters would have dragged that down a bit, but not enough to go negative i would agree) but then compare - and bear in mind the proviso above which is also true, albeit for slightly different reasons, for many african & ex-ussr states - kazakhstan, lithuania, botswana, uganda, lesotho, zambia, to name just a few. since the imposition of imf rules for international loans (mid nineties on in particular), most reports state that things have gotten much worse for the poorer/poorest countries
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 11, 2003, 01:35
|
||
|
okay, many many points to come back on, excuse me if i just pick a few, hopefully they make for a fair representation of what you argue: "he said more or less "the contradictions of capitalism will cause it to fall and be replaced by socialism" not quite, he said capitalism inevitably creates its own gravediggers, & that the contradictions would give rise to siuations where it can be overthrown, but also he said that 'capitalism will survive forever, if we let it'. "most developing countries aren't even close to "capitalist" (some of the worst starvation on earth is in N. Korea.)" i'd describe n. korea as state capitalist, and certainly the overwhelming majority of 3rd world countries are - extremely fucked over capitalist states, most of whom MUST run their economies on capitalist lines due to imf diktat "No, it's not a "free" market in the absolute sense, but such things are relative" absolutely, every state in the world has a degree of state 'interference' (agan, i'd call this them being state capitalist to a greater or lesser extent). experience has shown that unfetterred capitalism i, basically, a disaster - unending boom-bust cycle that makes the political system deeply unstable, so they intervene to place restrictions upon the worse aspects, and manipulate the markets to create some kind of stability, and, of course, protect their friends (arms manufacturers, rich farmers) "I am basically a believer in individual choice above all" me too, that's why i think capitalism is a system that needs replacing - it does not offer the majority of citizens of even rich countries that much choice, let alone the citizens of the vast majority ofd the world. far too many people (the majority) effectively stopped from achieving anything like their full abilities because the economic system means they cannot, really, afford it, or they are told too many times that they will amount to nothing other than a road sweeper, whatever. sure modern capitalism is freer in many many ways than what went before, but that doesn't mean it's the best we can get. "if you don't like the choices people make, then that is basically a problem with humanity itself, not caused by some anthropromorphized boogeyman "system."" hmmm, may run out of room here, so 'ill make that a seperate post...
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Sep 11, 2003, 01:47
|
||
|
"if you don't like the choices people make, then that is basically a problem with humanity itself, not caused by some anthropromorphized boogeyman "system." on one level this is, of course, right. 'men make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing', as the old man said, in those days before the need to gender balance every statement. however, it also missses a point, that within a society where economic and political decisions are overwhelmingly determined by the need to sustain a capitalist model, there IS are rules that can seemingly not be broken - what adam smith called the 'invisible hand'. so, as i stated elsewhere, ALL capitalists are basically driven to accumulate accumulate capital in order to keep up with their competitors, they are forced to try to keep wages as low s they can (even if that is often fairly high) because if they dont, their competitors will, and will drive them out of nusiness. i dont know if you have ever been in a company thats made people redundant, but if you have you will very probably have heard the managers say, when announcing the redundancies, something like "i'm really sorry to have to do this, it's not what we want, but the market determines, blah blah blah" the idea that 'the market' cannot be bucked is rampant - even if it is obvious bollocks. of course, ultimately, we have the power and ability to change this, but that does require changing the economic system, to do which requires shaking off and rejecting vast chunks of everything we have been taught is 'natural' - not an easy task by any means, when pretty much everything is geared up to mainitaining the status quo, and dividing those that can change the system so that they fight and blame one another (the french, the yanks, the blacks, who/whatever) hmm, getting late and my ability to make sensse is rapidly diminishing.....
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Sep 11, 2003, 01:49
|
||
Good point. What I meant by human 'nature', was in response to your 'we're just animals', and therefore limited to our environment. What is it about human nature that means we can destroy the whole world we live on? Does that mean we are smarter than animals? That seems to me against the natural order of things. I don't believe I have to subscribe to nihilism in order to maintain my views on evolution. As for being a religious nut, well, no. But I believe we are composed of more exotic stuff than just synapses etc, yet still subject to natural laws. But that's a whole debate not worth having here, and no-one can know the answer to such metaphysical ponderings. lets stick to what we can talk about. I'm amazed there aren't more bloody noses on this discussion board as it is! Onwards and upwards :-) (in a helical, natural kinda way)
|
| Pages: 18 – [ Previous | 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
