[SeaGypsy]

The problem I have with the projection of hard socialism as the necessary response to the end of overall economic growth, is that it is based in the assumption that TPTB give a hoot what happens to the masses in consequence. I don't believe this. There may be a popular demand for communism, hard socialism, post collapse, but I doubt that matters much. For as long as the global casino keeps operating, the house keeps winning, why would those owning the casino shut it down? Why would they care if most of their punters are throwing themselves off the nearest tall building? There is no altruism at the level where it really matters. Social security is an insurance against revolt, not the generosity of a caring benefactor. I can't see any reason to believe anything other than hardening resolve to continue profiting regardless how obviously the pie is shrinking. Capitalism is dog eat dog. Capitalists don't suddenly become bleeding heart lefties.

[SeaGypsy]

P, ha! A commie witch hunt lol! I haven't really read enough of Onlooker to get a handle there yet. Ralphy is the only one I hammer at, mainly because I'm lazy & he is an easy target. American Dream is a fully out Marxist, who works from home playing the markets, a tad hypocritical, but at least up front.

At some point or other I have found agreement with all of the above, as with most posters here. But some ideas are really pie in the sky. The idea of sudden conversion to communism as peak everything mitigation strategy is about as absurd as a global Manhattan project. Nice ideas, never going to happen.

Sorry for being old & cynical.

[ralfy]

The vast majority of people worldwide do NOT lack "basic needs." If they did, they would be dead.

Most people worldwide lack access to one or more basic needs, especially intermediate and advanced health care as well as quality education, because they earn only a few dollars a day and live in poor countries:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats

Because most human beings earn less than $10 a day, they can only access many of these needs through public funding.

Finally, this link was shared several times in the forum:

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

[ralfy]

The problem I have with the projection of hard socialism as the necessary response to the end of overall economic growth, is that it is based in the assumption that TPTB give a hoot what happens to the masses in consequence. I don't believe this. There may be a popular demand for communism, hard socialism, post collapse, but I doubt that matters much. For as long as the global casino keeps operating, the house keeps winning, why would those owning the casino shut it down? Why would they care if most of their punters are throwing themselves off the nearest tall building? There is no altruism at the level where it really matters. Social security is an insurance against revolt, not the generosity of a caring benefactor. I can't see any reason to believe anything other than hardening resolve to continue profiting regardless how obviously the pie is shrinking. Capitalism is dog eat dog. Capitalists don't suddenly become bleeding heart lefties.

There are no "projections of hard socialism" in my posts. If any, I keep arguing that TPTB will not "give a hoot." Rather, war may take place, leading to many suffering and dead. That's because the global economy on which TPTB relies for much of its wealth, which consists of credit, will not last unless more than enough oil and other material resources are produced. And military forces, together with governments, rely on TPTB for credit.

Also, ironically, TPTB relies on a growing global middle class, because that is the main source of its profits and returns on investment. Thus, capitalism does not rely on a "dog eat dog" world but the opposite: one where surplus energy and material resources will allow banks, businesses, households, governments, and even the military to grow. That's because economic growth essentially involves more profits and returns on investment, from which tax revenues, public funding, and income derive.

If any, a "dog eat dog" world is what takes place when industrial civilization, and a free market capitalist system on which it is established, fall apart.

[ralfy]

P, ha! A commie witch hunt lol! I haven't really read enough of Onlooker to get a handle there yet. Ralphy is the only one I hammer at, mainly because I'm lazy & he is an easy target. American Dream is a fully out Marxist, who works from home playing the markets, a tad hypocritical, but at least up front.

At some point or other I have found agreement with all of the above, as with most posters here. But some ideas are really pie in the sky. The idea of sudden conversion to communism as peak everything mitigation strategy is about as absurd as a global Manhattan project. Nice ideas, never going to happen.

Sorry for being old & cynical.

It is highly doubtful that capitalism will continue given a lack of energy and material resources. On the other hand, small communities practicing Communism may take place, as individuals give up on the idea of private property (which cannot continue in any event if there is no government to legitimize ownership, and makes no sense if there is no surplus in energy and material resources that will allow those who own the means of production to create thriving businesses) and instead share resources and help each other in order to survive. This took place many times in the past, especially among tribes and settlers in what were then remote parts of the world, and continues to take place in different forms in several poor communities today.

I think the problem is that there is a tendency to relate capitalism to what is "natural" (it's not, as it requires government to legitimize private property, money, etc.) or to see Communism as practiced by nation states as the opposite (it's not, as it is actually state capitalist). A better view is to realize that the type of economic system in place is ultimately determined by availability of energy and material resources. With an abundance of both, not only free market capitalism but even state capitalism will certainly thrive. Given the opposite....

[SeaGypsy]

See Pstarr, I agree with every word the Marxist just wrote.

[ralfy]

See Pstarr, I agree with every word the Marxist just wrote.

But I'm not Marxist. Also, what I shared has nothing to do with ideology but with reason.

[SeaGypsy]

Sorry mate, you don't like the label, I shall desist. I agree with your ethics, just doubt the likelihood of common sense prevailing in a world which it has become so much less than common.

[SeaGypsy]

Actually P, I am very aware of this stuff, having worked for many years with remote aboriginal tribes in Australia, we talk about the anthropological aspects of these mini societies as an ordinary part of knowing how to work here.
I did not, ever say what you have just said I said.

[SeaGypsy]

I agree. What I don't agree with is that there is any likelihood of a timely response in this direction at any scale of consequence.

[SeaGypsy]

Let's hope so.

[SeaGypsy]

A lot, well that's nicer than all people dying.

[Quinny]

Probably my favourite ever post on PO. Marxist theory and communism can sometimes sound crap, but it's ethics are sound!

Sorry mate, you don't like the label, I shall desist. I agree with your ethics, just doubt the likelihood of common sense prevailing in a world which it has become so much less than common.

[ralfy]

Sorry mate, you don't like the label, I shall desist. I agree with your ethics, just doubt the likelihood of common sense prevailing in a world which it has become so much less than common.

It's not that I don't like the label. It's just that I don't see the point in using labels, as my arguments are based on logic.

A simpler way of looking at the issue involves understanding that capitalism requires growth because the source of capital is growth, which in turn involves profit and returns on investment, both of which are part of capitalism, and consists essentially of credit. What gives value to that credit is ultimately a surplus of energy and material resources, both of which are needed to produce goods and services that are part of industrialization. And that's the connection between industrial civilization, which is the topic of this thread, and capitalism.

Thus, It doesn't matter whether or not one believes in capitalism or sees it as evil or good, it will not last because it requires increasing production and consumption of goods, which in turn requires increasing availability of energy and material resources, something which is not possible in the long run in a world with finite resources.

[onlooker]

I wholeheartedly agree with Ralpy , the time for labels is past , they are anachronistic at this point. If their is one thing that the world has showed us it is that any ideology not grounded in sound ecological principles is doomed to failure. So that is my problem with capitalism. That does not make me a Marxist. I simply see any systems we may adopt in the future as positive if grounded in ecological wisdom and negative if not.