[evilgenius]

Doesn't anybody see what happens to the concept of ownership when returning value to shareholders is the dominant paradigm? It becomes concerned solely with money. This is why the warning that, "The love of money is the root of all evil," is so pertinent. All reasons for investment in such a climate of return must bow down to what can be gained in terms of wealth. Only those mired in implacable stupidity or so well off as to afford the luxury of investing for any other reason than short-term gain can do so.

This paradigm allows people like Donald Trump to walk away from immense corporate failures to both the local community and investors in a weaker position than himself to simply shrug the loss off and state that he, "made a lot of money." It may almost completely cripple any chance of addressing climate change. It brands most people concerned with job flight as hypocrites. The list goes on.

[Plantagenet]

Did anyone here see the new Coen Brother's movie "Hail Caeser"?

It does a hilarious send-up of communism and communists. In the movie a bunch of silly pseudo-intellectual communists sit around in a huge posh mansion built on a cliff overlooking the ocean discussing economics and Das Kapital. Their leader is a doddering Prof. Marcuse, who they treat like a delphic oracle as he issues incomprehensible pronouncements on the dialectic. The communists call themselves "The Future" and they convince a dumb, gullible Hollywood movie star that he is a worker who is being exploited by the evil capitalist owner of the movie studio that has made him a star.

Hilarity ensues.


The Coen Brothers ridicule pseudo-intellectual communists in their new movie

[Ibon]

Capitalism also involves control of property through physical force

Capitalism also requires the exploitation of natural resources, (many of which are finite) and other people's labour.

Eventually capitalism will reach natural limits, (of which climate change is one) and those who have been exploited will revolt. Yet again.

Wash, rinse, repeat, until the natural limit is finally met for our entire species survivability. At that point, capitalism will have finally run it's course. Insatiable human greed will have won.

Good post. All the above makes sense to me.
Of course, if we could get off the planet, we could extend greed throughout the universe!

I sometimes read about the inherent rapacious nature of capitalism and how it is an economic system based on human greed and thus inherently flawed. This is of course reducing this to its most basic without elaborating on labor and capital and all the rest.

Capitalism up until today did not have to but up against limits and so there was no external forces present to steer it in any other path than what it has taken, consumption driven and dumping all the hidden costs on social and environmental externalities like climate change and uneven distribution of wealth etc.

Wouldn't it be valid to state that it is the external forces of limits more than any ideological revolution of thought, which will force the direction captialism will take and actually force our global economic system to address and mitigate those very social and environmental externalities that it has disrupted. If capitalism has any future it must engage in its flaws, right? that it didn't until now is simply because it didn't have to.

So isn't it too early to arrive at any conclusion around its ability to evolve, mitigate or adjust.

In fact, as abundant resources and labor were present it has adjusted perfectly well up until today. That the external parameters are changing simply means it will be challenged to evolve or be replaced.

This of course runs parallel to what I often state here regarding the solutions to human overshoot. It isn't primarily about educating women or more even distribution of wealth or what ever ideological idea comes forth, it is really about moving through the very consequences that are coming and in the process adjusting accordingly.

Capitalism will evolve out of the consequences of its flaws, not from some arm chair discussion. Or?

[jedrider]

Capitalism has been said to be BETTER than ALL other systems that we know of.

Yes, in the short term, of course.

I think Michio Kaku said this in public.

Basically, why scientists should stick to science.

Warning the world of imminent doom IS actually 'science',
so James Hansen gets a pass

[Hawkcreek]

Capitalism seemed to work much better before corporations became people. When an actual human being ran a company, it was slightly self-limited, to what the human thought was acceptable.
Now, a corporation acts like a robot, with a fixed devotion only to stock prices and "shareholder value". Kind of like runaway AI.
That left the law and regulations as the only limits, which were done away with as corporations gained enough power to buy the political and legal systems.
Maybe we should insist that real people be the only entities allowed to wade in the capitalist pool. They seem to have some limits.

[ralfy]

Capitalism also requires the exploitation of natural resources, (many of which are finite) and other people's labour.

Eventually capitalism will reach natural limits, (of which climate change is one) and those who have been exploited will revolt. Yet again.

Wash, rinse, repeat, until the natural limit is finally met for our entire species survivability. At that point, capitalism will have finally run it's course. Insatiable human greed will have won.

Definitely, but it's likely that nature rather than greed will win:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

[Ibon]

There is a not so subtle difference between being defeatist and accepting that consequences will eclipse human agency in what drives human cultural evolution in the generations ahead.

[onlooker]

I think a few posts were dead on. Capitalism and the exploitation process are over the long term incompatible with a functioning biosphere and with a semblance of economic equality and justice. Capitalism as has been practiced by whatever name is synonymous with profit and gain and the attendant benefits of this profit. It has proved immensely successful as consolidating wealth in fewer and fewer hands as the competitiveness to gain more than rivals and for oneself has led to an arms race of profit making and monopoly. If AD wishes to discuss history and the culmination of Man's reasoning and objective intellect as the natural path history has been on then I would venture to say that Capitalism has an inherent paradox. That is while it allows for freedoms both material and intellectual and while it encourages and demands reason and intellect to thrive, it ultimately is dependent and nourished on and by subjective benefits which humans are vulnerable too and that is greed and power lust and thus to exploitative tactics. Thus our current civilization is characterized by pecuniary benefits accruing to the exploiters with the most attained by the highest and best exploiters. And our civilization is characterized by excessive greed contaminating the masses and paving the way for the insatiable exploitation of our planet without heeding the risks of said exploitation

[americandream]

I was in two minds as to whether to post this link in the Trump thread I have started or whether to in fact post it here. I settled on the latter as it hopefully kills two birds with one stone. On the one hand it illustrates my point which is the need two put the Gulf Arab lobby out of the Washington lobby/think tank circuit pose haste by whatever means. And on the other it supports my contentions elsewhere on this site that historic dialecticism (much to Plants consternation) will "distastefully" act, as it always has done since the rise of time and space, will act to affect a species movement through that time and space, subject to the quality of that species subjective interaction with dialectics objective forces. The article traces the links between Islams core forms, decisive figures in the enforcement of those forms throughout the Islamic world from start to now, and the role played by reasonable forces in harnessing those forms to their ends and the effects that have flowed therefrom (and yet, one hopes are capable of being (and ideally should have at the end of the Cold War been) nipped in the bud, Washington power broking wise).

I am off for the day with my daughter so enjoy. Posting on here will be infrequent as I have said but I have favourited this thread and will develop its themes over time. Feel free to post in the meantime, if only to ridicule. That all adds to identifying specific inaccuracies which I shall address in time. This is a long term project so it is not as if I am in a hurry. That said, I have enough of a problem understanding half of this stuff so if you can make quicker sense of this, please feel free to help me by posting, don't be shy. No judgement here, just perfect and pure reason:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair- ... 17157.html

[Plantagenet]

historic dialecticism (much to Plants consternation) will .... act, as it always has done since the rise of time and space, will act to affect a species movement through that time and space, subject to the quality of that species subjective interaction with dialectics objective forces.

I have no consternation about historic dialecticism acting, anymore than I am concerned about Jehovah or Bhudda or Allah or Rama or "the Force" acting.

You are welcome to your faith---I just don't happen to share your religious beliefs.


Cheers!

[onlooker]

I do not think AD has any religious beliefs Plant, he detests religion. He does have some strong intellectual opinions though.

[Plantagenet]

I do not think AD has any religious beliefs Plant, he detests religion. He does have some strong intellectual opinions though.

Marxism and the belief in the historic dialect have all the earmarks of a religion.

Marxists have faith in a prophet----Karl Marx.

They have faith in a holy book written by their prophet----Das Kapital.

They believe with deep intensity that the future is pre-ordained by the historical dialectic as described in their holy book Das Kapital written by Marx.

This really is no different from Islamists who believe the future is preordained by Allah as described in their holy book the Koran written by their prophet Muhammad.

I know that AD and other marxists would deny that they are religious, but if you make an comparison between marxism and religions, there isn't any real difference.

Cheers!


And then the dialectic said, let there be class conflict, and lo, there was class conflict

[onlooker]

Yes but with the disclaimer that the ideas of Marx are set on an intellectual platform and thus not equivalent to religious ones which are set on faith based and moral based arguments. On the other hand in terms of fervent disciples or devotees, yes one can make the argument that Communism appeals to some with a religious fervor. In fact one can also make that same argument for Capitalism.

[Ibon]

Dogma is like the tracks of a train, it only leads back in one direction and only goes forward to a predetermined destination. That is exactly how ISMS function, whether it be a religious ISM or an ideological ISM. No real difference.

Jump the tracks!

[SeaGypsy]

Or break them.

[onlooker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0K14HBSWw0
"I'm not going to stop the wheel. I'm going to break the wheel. "

[Plantagenet]

...the ideas of Marx are set on an intellectual platform and thus not equivalent to religious ones which are set on faith based and moral based arguments.

But what is that "intellectual platform"???---Its just faith in their holy book Das Kapital and belief in the concept of a historical dialectic controlling history. Marxism also has moral-based arguments---the workers and good and the capitalists are the sinners. IMHO Marxism is a faith-based secular religion and shares most of the characteristics of other religions.

The next time you are reading ADs posts about the way the historic dialectic controls history, try substituting "the Force" or "God" into the sentence in place of the words "historic dialectic. Its reads exactly the same way.

On the other hand in terms of fervent disciples or devotees, yes one can make the argument that Communism appeals to some with a religious fervor. In fact one can also make that same argument for Capitalism.

The Communist Party itself is composed entirely of people with faith in Marxism and the historical dialectic. Thats why they are so willing to kill those who disagree with them. Like other religious fantastics they have absolute certainty that they right.

As far as Capitalism goes, yes, there are people who are fervent advocates of Capitalism, but the difference is that Capitalism makes no claims about predicting the future, whereas Marxism and other religions claim the future is preordained and their faith has the key to how it all works.

Cheers!

[onlooker]

I am sure Plant, AD will enlighten us more on this preordained stuff. I see some merit in your arguments Plant, but I believe AD would argue that the difference between the postulations of Marx and those of religious texts is that the ideas of Marx are grounded in an observation of historical patterns ie. the interaction of both personal and non personal forces on the world stage. Thus, it is deductions based on sound fact based analysis. This differing with religious ideology formed via myths of supernatural forces and activities. Now has per anything pre-ordained relative to humanity, I see a problem with that. This is because humans are notoriously unpredictable as we have a myriad of ways we can react to certain situations and a myriad of characteristics that offset each other. The prime example being reason and emotion. We also have free will. So while the general contours of history can point to possible future outcomes, we do not know exactly which way humanity will veer or even smaller groups within it. One thing is sure never have we remotely been at this stage in terms of total population size and in terms of our affect upon our environment. So history cannot inform us relative to this particular era.

[careinke]

I do not think AD has any religious beliefs Plant, he detests religion. He does have some strong intellectual opinions though.

This really is no different from Islamists who believe the future is preordained by Allah as described in their holy book the Koran written by their prophet Muhammad.

Although I agree with your premise that Marxism is a religion, your knowledge of Islam is a little lacking. According to EVERY Wahhabi I know, Mohamed wrote nothing, he was illiterate. The Koran was not written by Mohamed, it was given to him by God. Now, why it took God a month to pass it on, when he was able to create the entire universe in only seven days, is beyond me. Gods just have their own reasons sometimes.

[Plantagenet]

I do not think AD has any religious beliefs Plant, he detests religion. He does have some strong intellectual opinions though.

This really is no different from Islamists who believe the future is preordained by Allah as described in their holy book the Koran written by their prophet Muhammad.

Although I agree with your premise that Marxism is a religion, your knowledge of Islam is a little lacking. According to EVERY Wahhabi I know, Mohamed wrote nothing, he was illiterate. The Koran was not written by Mohamed, it was given to him by God. Now, why it took God a month to pass it on, when he was able to create the entire universe in only seven days, is beyond me. Gods just have their own reasons sometimes.

Good point Careinke----You got me there. I just assumed Muhammad wrote it.

If you are right that Allah gave it to Muhammad over the course of month, then did Allah take 5 years to pass on Das Kapital to Karl Marx?