Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 978 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:36 am Post subject: Breaking the back of capitalism
What is it going to take to break the back of capitalism? Or is it possible? I’m not talking about ending free enterprise, but rather the never ending growth required by capitalism.
Does the entire system (capitalism, free enterprise, money) need to completely fall apart, and ruin society as we know it, or can there be “significant enough” events to allow capitalism to be excised before killing the patient? _________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
So you mean the collapse of fractional reserve banking and fiat currency, etc... I see no way to put the brakes on these things, once they are started, they must operate indefinitely or collapse eventually. When or why collapse? Who knows exactly. In my mind, a permanent global energy crisis stands a very good chance of being able to take those things down.
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: Breaking the back of capitalism
FatherOfTwo wrote:
What is it going to take to break the back of capitalism? Or is it possible? I’m not talking about ending free enterprise, but rather the never ending growth required by capitalism.
Does the entire system (capitalism, free enterprise, money) need to completely fall apart, and ruin society as we know it, or can there be “significant enough” events to allow capitalism to be excised before killing the patient?
I think it has to crash under its own weight, yes. Debt based fractional reserve banking as foundation for "money" will come crashing down big time, but before the crash the system is invincibly strong and little can be done to take it down piecmal and gradual, and definitely not abruptly by force. Just sit back and watch as things unfold, build a network of friends to help eachother to get by in the times to come. And keep some extra food around. You dont need that much though, since most people will have none at all.
My current thinking on the subject hint that PeakOil might indeed never ever get in the center of the public discussion. Even if PO indeed IS the core problem, the majority will percieve it as a purely economic crisis. And I think it would be a good outcome - we are after all conditioned to live with occasional economical crises and the risk for mass hysteria is reduced.
Last edited by MacG on Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 610 Location: The Pit of Despair
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:49 pm Post subject:
The money system will break without growth, which has been discussed in detail many times. But if you can take a step back for a moment, you will realize that money is a man-made concept. It only exists in our minds, and has value because we believe in it. If you took money away from our society entirely, it is possible that products could continue to be made and people could continue to have the things that they need. But it wouldn't likely happen that way, would it? There would probably be a lot of trouble, and then, perhaps some different (bankless?) monetary system could emerge.
There's no reason to believe that capitalism can't exist without growth, especially in an evironment of stagnant (or declining) population. The result of declining population would be more capital per capita, which could be a good thing.
Joined: May 19, 2005 Posts: 812 Location: Merry Ol' USA
Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:29 pm Post subject:
I'm not sure that in the long run the base concept of capitalism - making a profit - can survive. I suppose it depends to some extent what manner of living we all have. If people are still living comfortably, I think it survives in some form. As the previous poster said, money is simply a concept in our minds, so it could still be worth something. However, if people are living in caves (a figure of speech), I doubt that capitalism will have a future. Maybe in limited levels, i.e. I'll trade you five shovels for 2 day's worth of food, where a person only needs one shovel. The big thing about capitalism is that it thrives on non-necessities. If you're only talking about food, clothing, and basic shelter, there's really nothing to continually move. _________________ After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:32 am Post subject:
I've just re-read Heinberg's Powerdown, and he says in several places that our economic/financial system only knows how to grow, how it has to grow or collapse, etc.
I'm beginning to think that this kind of system is what's meant by "Capitalism" or "Free Enterprise" when the ruling class talks about this, or even the semi-ruling class.
To me, "capitalism" is, I go out and find some electronics junk, buy it for one price, sell it for a higher price, and in effect I'm earning money for the service of going out and finding the stuff and putting the effort into selling it, shipping it, describing it, advertising it, etc. If I find less junk one year than another and my income is lower, so what? But if I ran a corporation that did what I do, and it doesn't grow from year to year, the stock will go down, no one will want to hold the stock, and it will die. That's grow or die.
I'm not sure what I do is even "Capitalism" at all. I own a job, I don't get to sit on my ass and collect the money, I work as hard as most people who make the level of pay I do.
This is something the Soviets etc had to wrestle with, since they needed the small shopkeepers, the traveling salesmen, the advertisers, etc to allocate goods and services. They were forced to admit that you needed those guys. What they did NOT need, were the sit-back-and-exploit-the-workers types.
Heinberg and others talk about our debt-based monetary system as a big problem too, that's also set up on the grow-or-die plan. Only it's inflate-or-die.
The best way to say F.U. to the current system is to be self-sufficient as much as possible, and actually not need "cash money" that much. Make too little an income to tax, like Jim Merkel, the "Radical Simplicity" guy decided to do, and you're not supporting the present military/economic system much if at all. Barter and trade in your community and you're not using debt-money.
Peak Oil and learning about this stuff is great! I actually dream about making LESS money in the future!
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13177 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Self-sufficiency/interdependency and a sharing economy could eventually take the place of capitalism, but only if people work together to do it. This doesn't seem to be the trend.
Joined: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 890 Location: Scotland
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 10:09 am Post subject:
you'll always have some people who want to acquire more 'capital' than others, so i dont see capitalism ever ceasing to exist so long as humans are around. when one of your basest instincts is greed, then capitalism will exist even in places of economic depression. im fairly sure pockets of capitalism existed in communist russia - some people had more 'stuff' than others, and under communism that wasnt meant to happen, so man's natural state of capitalism could not be curtailed.
capitalism is the natural state of mankind unfortunately.
you'll always have some people who want to acquire more 'capital' than others, so i dont see capitalism ever ceasing to exist so long as humans are around. when one of your basest instincts is greed, then capitalism will exist even in places of economic depression. im fairly sure pockets of capitalism existed in communist russia - some people had more 'stuff' than others, and under communism that wasnt meant to happen, so man's natural state of capitalism could not be curtailed.
capitalism is the natural state of mankind unfortunately.
Didn't some cultures manage to avoid capitalism (and its similars) throughout history like the Native American Indians? and some other Carribean cultures? If so how did they manage this? Was it because they cared more about family rather than possessions? or am I just going off on the wrong track? _________________ Hello, my name is Rax. I live in the Amazon jungle with a bunch of women. We are super eco feminists and our favourite passtimes are dangling men by their ankles and discussing peak oil. - apparently
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:45 pm Post subject: Re: Breaking the back of capitalism
FatherOfTwo wrote:
What is it going to take to break the back of capitalism? Or is it possible? I’m not talking about ending free enterprise, but rather the never ending growth required by capitalism.
Does the entire system (capitalism, free enterprise, money) need to completely fall apart, and ruin society as we know it, or can there be “significant enough” events to allow capitalism to be excised before killing the patient?
I don't think that's possible. What typically happens is that you have periods of growth followed by a crash, growth and crash and so on. If you are smart and plan things out the periods between the crash are longer.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13177 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:08 pm Post subject:
Raxozanne wrote:
Didn't some cultures manage to avoid capitalism (and its similars) throughout history like the Native American Indians? and some other Carribean cultures? If so how did they manage this? Was it because they cared more about family rather than possessions? or am I just going off on the wrong track?
A lot of tribal cultures, maybe most of them, didn't have a capitalistic system because in many cases they didn't really have the same sense of private ownership that we have. Some cultures haven't had private ownership really at all. Though some did have the idea of acquiring a lot of wealth in the form of, for instance, horses. But these were acquired through physical prowess, usually, not forcing others to work hard so the acquirer could make a "profit." Systems of trading existed between different tribes, but it seems unlikely these were based on ideas of profit, but rather on the idea of trying to get something the tribes wouldn't be able to have otherwise, such as pottery, or flint, etc. The capitalistic system of a lot of people doing work for a few "elites" doesn't exist in most (not all) tribal cultures, in which labor specialization doesn't feature the way it does in our culture. Of course it's hard to make any solid generalisations about tribal cultures, because they're all different.
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 3:53 pm Post subject:
Yeah among Native Americans there were people who were obsessed with having the nicest clothes, who'd put more emphasis into getting those, either by making them or trading for them etc., but that activity didn't take food out of say, the poorest kids in the tribes' mouths.
Some people had more skills, and could make the best bows or the best arrowheads etc., so they had the power to trade for stuff, but I don't think it was minutely accounted for like we do with our money system, it was more like, loose and informal, "Oh, you're going off on a hunt? Here, I just made some great arrowheads, here you go, good luck!" then the good arrowhead maker got to share well in the feast afterward etc. Imagine the informal network of sharing and favors we have in a few neighborhoods in the USA and that should give an idea.
"Gift economies" are another good example. Those are found among "primitive" peoples and they also exist on the Net. In fact I think the sociologists who study such things consider forums like this to be a gift economy.
It was trading goods for services but it was not the system we have in place now, where money and material goods matter more than people, especially the people who make the things.
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4721 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:40 pm Post subject:
Quote:
"Gift economies" are another good example. Those are found among "primitive" peoples and they also exist on the Net. In fact I think the sociologists who study such things consider forums like this to be a gift economy.
I've been meaning to mention this...y'all owe me for everything I've posted here. Considering the going rate of a penny for your thoughts, I want $7.50 from each person on the site. Please PM me for payment details. _________________ "www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Breaking the back of capitalism
FatherOfTwo wrote:
What is it going to take to break the back of capitalism?
Capitalism is a useful way of organizing human societies, and has been a great benefit to people. The fact that we are all typing on cheap computers is just one example.
More importantly, establishing yourself as an "anti-capitalist" is just about the best way to get yourself painted as a kook who isn't worth listening too.
Without a doubt, capitalism is the best way to maximize GDP growth per capita. So the only way to strike a hard blow against capitalism is to attack that goal. If you want to maximize something other than GDP growth per capita, then you can look at capitalism and other systems, and compare how they perform relative to the new criteria. For example, if your goal is to maximize employment, communism is clearly superior to capitalism.
To attack capitalism, you've got to focus the debate on goals, not the economic systems per se. No economic system is inherently better than any other. They only fall into a ranking in the context of a goal.
Therefore, to discuss the merits of capitalism, you have to answer this: What will the new system be designed to maximize if not GDP growth per capita? What positive thing will people get in return for sacrificing increasing per capita wealth?
Joined: Aug 13, 2004 Posts: 1185 Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:
JohnDenver wrote:
What positive thing will people get in return for sacrificing increasing per capita wealth?
Survival.
"Sometimes we must do what is required." -Churchill
this is our chance to evolve to the next level of consciousness.
We no longer have to be stupid monkeys.
It's our choice. This is our purpose as a species: to pass this test.
JohnDenver wrote:
To attack capitalism, you've got to focus the debate on goals, not the economic systems per se. No economic system is inherently better than any other. They only fall into a ranking in the context of a goal.
Goal: To prove to ourselves and the rest of the species on the planet, that we too can co-exist with each other and with them.
Last edited by turmoil on Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
Page 1 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
