[Tanada]

23622159_10159634593505607_6087484539244216775_n.jpg

I am not going to go through the whole list, but just from the top few I see Slavery, which has existed for all of human history. Limiting it to 500 years is an attempt to blame it on the exploitation of the America's which is disingenuous at best. Next Genocide of Native Americans was not done for simple money grab reasons, there was a great deal of racism, religious motivation, and simple theft involved in the process but the bulk of the deaths were the accidental introduction of European diseases in the 1500's by explorers and early immigrants who had no concept of germ theory or understanding of disease. The conquest of the remnant population was a nasty business, but compared to anywhere else on the planet at the time it was standard operating procedure based on the rule of might makes right.
The preventable disease/hunger/poverty claims are just silly. People do not die from these things because someone else has a money motive, if that were the case the WHO and UN blue helmets could have fixed the first two decades ago.
Vietnam war was equally Capitalist/Communist as both philosophies drove governments to fund the war from start to finish. The exact same thing is true of Korea, Angola, Mozambique, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, not to mention the Cuban Embargo.
How they managed to twist the War on Drugs as being a Capitalist cause is beyond me, and I am a Libertarian that believes adults should have the freedom to choose to fry their brains on drugs of that is what they want to do. Most of the remainder are badly formulated and executed plans by the USA State Department which has a disturbing view of international policy, but again these things are hardly Capitalist in nature. Take for example the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's started by Iraq with the encouragement of the USA in retaliation for the embarrassment of the Hostage Crisis of 1979-1981. Or the East Timor 'Crisis' when the Muslim government of Indonesia decided to invade and conquer the other half of the island of Timor which had been a Portuguese territory for centuries. The fact that the residents were predominantly Catholic surrounded by Muslims was a much bigger factor in the invasion than any potential Capitalist gains.

I trust I have made my point, though I am certain the dedicated Marxist faithful will refuse to accept that fact.

[KaiserJeep]

You simple-minded Marxists had best get off your high horses and look at facts, not the twaddle that they filled your little empty heads with in schools of "higher education".

Firstly, Marx and Engels were fools. They did not work for a living, they sponged off of Engels parents, who had managed to preserve the upper-Middle-Class lifestyles they (and the Marx family) had enjoyed in Germany, before both families moved to England. What Marx and Engels did not understand (because they were contemporaries of Charles Darwin) is the innate nature of mankind, which is that of a primate who lives in social groups. Not their fault, Darwin's genius was not recognized for decades after Marx and Engels published their foolish texts on Communism, but in retrospect Anthropology proved their work was all twaddle. Today we have another class of peole who also are fools who never worked for a living, educating our young people.

Secondly, Marxism in multiple forms has failed to work with even the slightest degree of success. The USSR had a thriving underground economy, which is the only reason it could even feed itself. Most of the food did not come from the state farms, it came from the private rural plots, a form of Capitalism fed the USSR. Other flavors of Marxism failed in multiple places, and there is no example of a Marxist economy that actually works, either today or in the past.

Meanwhile, every time that Marxism, or Fuedalism, or any other "ism" you want to discuss, falls on it's face yet again, Capitalism breaks out spontaneously and replaces it. Capitalism was never invented by anybody, it is primate behavior, apes doing what their instincts demand, and it is the only economic system that works well at all.

[GHung]

..... and it is the only economic system that works well at all.

Until it doesn't. Maximizing rates and efficiency of resource extraction does that eventually. And, of course, we don't have pure capitalism (more of a hybrid system). Not sure who does.

[onlooker]

Okay Tanada while technically you are not wrong about what you said, I think it goes deeper than that. First off, It would be helpful for the sake of conversation to clarify what I mean when I speak about Capitalism. I am referring to it in its most general sense, meaning the profit motive, personal possessions, money and private companies. Okay, now I will try to go point by point to stress how I see a connection with Capitalism.
First off with regards to slavery certainly slavery as existed for a long time and if one looks at why, one can quickly determine that it is for the sake of profit. So, 500 years is then being generous as it goes back even further. Now, in terms of Native Americans yes, I also read that primarily what decimated the indigenous populations was germs. But why were the Europeans in the Americas in the first place? Again the profit motive. Now, for the hunger/poverty casualties. Well, directly yes they are not dying from Capitalism but Capitalism is creating the environment for their premature deaths. Again because in a world whereby FF and the Industrial Revolution created such abundance, the stark fact remains that the benefits were very unevenly applied. Places like India and such remained in extreme levels of destitution and poverty and so their denizens were vulnerable to basic health risks that at that time and into the more recent times, rich world citizens had almost eliminated. Is Capitalism directly at fault perhaps not but certainly it is noteworthy that it has and continues to fail so many around the world.
As for the internecine conflicts, one can have differences of opinion about the root causes. But my opinion, it the US and Western Europe were dead set on achieving world wide hegemony and painted Communism is such bad light because of that. They were the true aggressors and simply depicted Communism as their nemesis because it was convenient for them in order to have this expansionist imperialistic policies be successful. As for the War on Drugs, it is a prominent example of the calculating greedy attitudes of those who make decisions in Capitalistic countries. Too much stories have surfaced of corruption from drug money for one to be naive and not comprehend that the leadership has tolerated the drug trade has it has incessantly skimmed off funds from it. The proof is the dismal results , in which the Drug business has increased its reach and power and now even Prisons are for profit and profiteering from this Business. Drug addicts should have been treated from the beginning as patients not criminals and we would probably now have much less demand for drugs and consequently less of the fatalities and victims associated with the Drug trade.
Finally, as for that "disturbing view" of international policy, well it should be disturbing given that the US has been acting with imperial ambitions since at least after WWII. Those conflicts and squabbles in different countries have much to do with clandestine black ops from the US and its proxies. As one example look up the "School of the Americas" for what type of training police and military of South, Central America and the Caribbean received there. Murder, torture and such was the training. So much literature and info exists to vouch for this view of how the US has systematically been interfering and intervening overtly and covertly in the affairs of other countries to destabilize them and put in regimes more favorable to them and/or in some way attain some benefit. Benefit mostly being the exploitation of the resources of countries and its workforce. As for those places where animosity and fractious relations already existed, I do not deny that in some cases has been evident but that does not absolve Capitalism and its main practitioners from their role in meddling there and taking advantage of the already unstable situations there.

[asg70]

"simply depicted Communism as their nemesis because it was convenient for them in order to have this expansionist imperialistic policies be successful"

Hmmm.. Expansionist.... Ask someone who lived under the iron curtain whether Communism was unfairly derided, or the victims of Mao's great leap forward or Stalin's purges.

You can argue that it wasn't America's responsibility to function as world policeman, but had it simply packed its bags and gone home after WWII there's no way of knowing what would have happened to, let's say, Western Europe, given that the USSR had already taken half of Germany for itself.

I really think moderate ideology is by far the most evolved because at least you can see the pros and cons of each side. I really detest the selective way the hard left or the hard right spins things and fails to see the other side, and you're clearly HARD left.

[GHung]

Seems virtually every large-scale macro-economic system promotes parasitism (another ism!) to a point where said parasitism becomes unsupportable. Capitalism is not immune to this progression. Eventually the weight of non-producers overwhelms the inputs of producers and available resources at which time fiat economies implode. Meanwhile, waste streams become increasingly unaccounted for. Price discovery of dead weight is inevitable.
About the only viable system, long-term seems to be on a smaller distributed tribal level. The longer we cheat that reality, the bigger will be the implosion.

Hyper-complexity is an artifact of overshoot. Simplification is our ultimate destination.

[Ibon]

Seems virtually every large-scale macro-economic system promotes parasitism (another ism!) to a point where said parasitism becomes unsupportable. Capitalism is not immune to this progression. Eventually the weight of non-producers overwhelms the abilities of producers and available resources at which time fiat economies implode. Price discovery of dead weight is inevitable.
About the only viable system, long-term seems to be on a smaller distributed tribal level. The longer we cheat that reality, the bigger will be the implosion.

Hyper-complexity is an artifact of overshoot. Simplification is our ultimate destination.

Yep. Well said. Capitalism on the ascent is completely consistent ecologically with the pattern of overshoot. On the descent?

[asg70]

Communism still leads to overshoot as it's simply another brand of civilization.

This is why permaculture as a concept came about. It was supposed to 'solve' the dilemma of civilization in all its forms (feudalism, communism, capitalism, etc....) being unsustainable. It's just that when people think of permaculture these days they only view it as a form of gardening / edible landscaping. Of course, the fact that permaculture's ideological ambitions never took hold is all you need to know about human nature itself. The problem isn't this or that -ism. We don't have it in us to achieve steady-state.

[Tanada]

Seems virtually every large-scale macro-economic system promotes parasitism (another ism!) to a point where said parasitism becomes unsupportable. Capitalism is not immune to this progression. Eventually the weight of non-producers overwhelms the inputs of producers and available resources at which time fiat economies implode. Meanwhile, waste streams become increasingly unaccounted for. Price discovery of dead weight is inevitable.
About the only viable system, long-term seems to be on a smaller distributed tribal level. The longer we cheat that reality, the bigger will be the implosion.

Hyper-complexity is an artifact of overshoot. Simplification is our ultimate destination.

I don't disagree with anything you say here. On the other hand I do think your time horizon is too limited in that simplification as in collapse to a lower consumption lifestyle is not an end point IMO, just part of the sine wave that is human civilization. Ever since the development of agriculture our varied civilizations go up, peak, fall apart and get replaced either by their own distant descendants or a newer culture from a neighboring territory.

I don't doubt for a moment that we will swing down possibly all the way to separated tribal groups if the collapse is truly apocalyptic in scope like an asteroid, super volcano, or total nuclear weapon exchange like you see in 1950's scare films or that TV drama The Day After from 1984. But hitting bottom is just a phase like hitting peak, after that 'civilization' will grow again so long as agriculture is not totally lost as a lifestyle.

[GHung]

Seems virtually every large-scale macro-economic system promotes parasitism (another ism!) to a point where said parasitism becomes unsupportable. Capitalism is not immune to this progression. Eventually the weight of non-producers overwhelms the inputs of producers and available resources at which time fiat economies implode. Meanwhile, waste streams become increasingly unaccounted for. Price discovery of dead weight is inevitable.
About the only viable system, long-term seems to be on a smaller distributed tribal level. The longer we cheat that reality, the bigger will be the implosion.

Hyper-complexity is an artifact of overshoot. Simplification is our ultimate destination.

I don't disagree with anything you say here. On the other hand I do think your time horizon is too limited in that simplification as in collapse to a lower consumption lifestyle is not an end point IMO, just part of the sine wave that is human civilization. Ever since the development of agriculture our varied civilizations go up, peak, fall apart and get replaced either by their own distant descendants or a newer culture from a neighboring territory.

I don't doubt for a moment that we will swing down possibly all the way to separated tribal groups if the collapse is truly apocalyptic in scope like an asteroid, super volcano, or total nuclear weapon exchange like you see in 1950's scare films or that TV drama The Day After from 1984. But hitting bottom is just a phase like hitting peak, after that 'civilization' will grow again so long as agriculture is not totally lost as a lifestyle.

By "our" I mean our society. What happens after may be predictable in a general sense with history as a teacher, but I've also considered the possibility that there will be hard limits to humanity's ability to recover to a level anywhere close to the industrial age. Too many finite resources are gone forever, and I see exceeding sustainable planetary limitations on such a scale as being a one-shot deal.

The only other possibility would be if we perfect a magical energy source that permits humans to escape planetary limitations.

[onlooker]

What Ghung says is very true, That is why any system resembling Capitalism would be highly detrimental to our descendants in trying to forge cohesive functioning societies in the future. I can envision communal societies stressing sharing and frugality. Their motto will be something to the effect of their is enough for everyone's needs but not for anyone's greed

[KaiserJeep]

FWIW I don't think that anybody will have a high-consumption lifestyle after the big FF power-down and the dieback of the overshoot population.

But contrary to all of your assumptions, I believe that a powered-down lifestyle will actually be higher tech than our lives today. Silicon chips are a huge win productivity wise, and the WWW is a huge boost as well. Ask GHung to count the microprocessors at his doomstead ... in his appliances, his tools, his solar inverters, etc. etc. There simply is no going back, and no falling back, to simple agrarian lifestyles. Nor would one want to run a piece of alcohol-fuelled agricultural equipment without a computer-controlled engine, it costs to much effort to make the fuel to burn it at only 50% of the possible efficiency.

The classic "Fall of Civilization" you see in all the movies is pure bunk. Our descendants after the power down will be poorer in terms of possessions, but even more high-tech than we are.

[Cog]

What Ghung says is very true, That is why any system resembling Capitalism would be highly detrimental to our descendants in trying to forge cohesive functioning societies in the future. I can envision communal societies stressing sharing and frugality. Their motto will be something to the effect of their is enough for everyone's needs but not for anyone's greed

Might as well have quoted Marx since that is exactly what he was pushing.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

The bodies of 100 million dead people are testament to the failure of this plan. Sharing at the point of a gun, enforced by the state, is how this plays out in reality. If you want to form a commune with like minded people, have at it.

[Newfie]

All this looking backward is interesting, but it’s just either finding blame or identifying how we got to overshoot.

The emergent question is “Well Olie, what do we do now?”

I think there are a few “facts” few will argue with. The planet can not sustain unlimited growth. The time of those limitations is within the foreseeable future.

No matter how we got “here” where and how do we go next? I’ve not seen any model of capitalism that fits a steady state situation let alone a contracting situation.

Really I’m just restating Ibons excellent point above that was glossed over.

[asg70]

Their motto will be something to the effect of their is enough for everyone's needs but not for anyone's greed

Hopefully when they get there they'll remember the difference between there, their, and they're.

It's hard to imagine a world post-die-off that has enough for everyone's needs unless there's almost none of us left.

[GHung]

What Ghung says is very true, That is why any system resembling Capitalism would be highly detrimental to our descendants in trying to forge cohesive functioning societies in the future. I can envision communal societies stressing sharing and frugality. Their motto will be something to the effect of their is enough for everyone's needs but not for anyone's greed

Might as well have quoted Marx since that is exactly what he was pushing.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

The bodies of 100 million dead people are testament to the failure of this plan. Sharing at the point of a gun, enforced by the state, is how this plays out in reality. If you want to form a commune with like minded people, have at it.

Unlike you, I'm not "pushing" anything. Unlike you, I know better. And, unlike you, I try to not read things into other peoples' comments.

What I've determined is that capitalism is self-limiting when unconstrained and that people will forward their own self-interests at the expense of others when they can do so 'anonymously' and aren't held accountable by society. I'll gladly hold you up as an example. In a smaller society where all are expected to contribute and behave, people are generally held accountable because "we know where you live". Small societies can't afford parasitism or dead weight, especially on a cultural or institutionalized level. On a basic level, people are expected to get along, or get TF out.

[KaiserJeep]

Whatever one proposes to replace Capitalism (aka normal primate behavior) it has to take into account the basic nature of mankind. Marx and Engels, for all their ernest efforts to describe an ideal economy, wrote convincingly of a vision that was pure BS, based as it was on the 19th century view of mankind, the conquerer and subjugator of the natural world. Their ignorance of the nature of Kudzu Apes, and the very eloquence they used to describe something better than Capitalism, in the end killed hundreds of millions of people. In one sense they are deadlier villians than Ghenghis Kahn, Adolf Hitler, or Mao Zedong, because their convincingly written prose inspired true villiany on the parts of others, who sought to implement their vision of a more advanced society.

Darwin's groundbreaking work produced the science of Anthropology, and the understanding of the true nature of mankind. Since about the middle of the 20th Century we have had the knowledge necessary to understand how fundamentally flawed are the writings of Marx and Engels. Sadly, we have had no one since then who can write of a better alternative to Capitalism.

In fact, with the knowledge we now have, there may not exist anything better than Capitalism. Not to mention, a better idea is only a start, you have to have an implementation plan as well. Marx and Engels had none, instead they believed that the economy would evolve beyond Capitalism through the stages they described. Unfortunately, thhey have instead inspired a whole legion of admirers who sought to hasten such natural evolution, and go directly to that impossible fantasy they had envisioned.

The lesson is quite clear. Two powerful forces exist today that Marx and Engels had no knowledge of, which are high technology and our information network. I am surrounded by legions of half aware cyber people, with cell phones, BlueTooth headsets, and virtual reality displays. I do not know if it is possible to replace Capitalism with something better, but I am certain that there is an opportunity do do so, because the new cyber humans are different from their parents. What that "better idea" that may replace Capitalism might be, I have no idea - but I am certain that it will only be workable on cyber humans, and that the likes of us who acquired tech toys late in our lives will not be participants in their new economy.

[GHung]

Again, KJ, you display your techno-narcisism by skipping the part where the cyber age is turning on itself in every way imaginable. Your technology age is no different than previous ages where humans exploited, made war and subverted their fellow humans, except in their methods and frequency. At least, in the past, they could usually see their enemies coming. Indeed, growing reliance upon technology has made us more vulnerable in many ways.

How's your Equifax account doing? Do you have any expectations of privacy? Any at all? Fact is, your life is under attack from people you'll never know, in ways even a tech wiz like you can't predict. Do you really believe that is a viable future that has long legs? Seems your high tech future is not immune at all to that basic human nature you speak of.

Capitalism at its finest, eh?

[asg70]

In a smaller society where all are expected to contribute and behave, people are generally held accountable because "we know where you live". Small societies can't afford parasitism or dead weight, especially on a cultural or institutionalized level. On a basic level, people are expected to get along, or get TF out.

That is also a function of limited resources and technology. For instance, the original settlers in the Americas, the Mayflower crew, etc..., sure, they were surrounded by the bounty of nature, but there were so few defenses against it that they had to keep functioning like a single crew, a single unit. Everything each member of society did was vital to their survival, and had to be done within certain time-windows. You couldn't afford to take a sick day. People were counting on you constantly. This was, of course, a dual-edged sword. You were important, but you may not have had a lot of say in how you wound up responsible for this or that task. Once you were the blacksmith, you couldn't just quit and take up basketweaving.

Today society has surplus up and down the chain. Surplus energy, surplus products on the shelves, and surplus people. That means there's a lot of individual choice and yet, paradoxically, a lack of value in any one thing. Everything has been commodified, even dating, as well as certain people who will rush to try to convince us that this is alright.

[KaiserJeep]

GHung, some of us participated in the advent of the cyber age. My career spanned the period of the large IBM mainframe to the mobile devices of today, and I was never overwhelmed, as I was an EE who was implementing my small piece of the cyber world. I built a PC back in the day of the IBM AT and before Windows was born, and I still have my hands-on approach after retiring. We have had our shredder and have practiced safe internet forever. Now I have a comfortable retirement account, two expensive homes, and will collect my first Social Security check in January - I waited to maximize the payout. I don't spend on credit any more except in special circumstances, we have even paid cash for our last three vehicles. I have no secrets and don't really care if anybody tries to pry into my life, we practice safe internet.

All of which is a diversion from my point above. My professional career is over, my attention is now on enriching my experiences for the remainder of my life, now that I'm free of financial need. Meanwhile, I never was overwhelmed by technology, and I'm not now. I am however an interested observer of the cyber society that you seemingly would deny. Good luck with that.