Capitalists Won't Survive Either

[T Monk]

Will global warming finally do what total corporate corruption, transnational corporate fascism, the military's and polices' heavyhanded response to popular resistance, and political corruption have failed to do with people. Like finally shake them out of their slumber to demand and enforce and end to corporate capitalism. Extreme capitalism must end if the planet is to survive temperture increases of the magnitude the real scientists are discussing. Or do the capitalists have some idea that they're going to keep a green little corner of existance all to themselves after all their greedy handiwork. Not on my watch.

[Fridays Child]

1. That level of greed must trigger a massive die-off of brain cells.

[KT2000]

2. In its later stages

capitalsim turns into cannabalism. They cannot stop themselves even when it becomes apparent it is against everyone's best interests. Yes - it will likely play itself out.

[calimary]

3. Welcome to DU!

I think such individuals would do well to study the story of the Romanoffs. They were on top of the world once, while the people got shat upon WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY down at the end of the food chain. Their safety and comfort and life of privilege didn't last forever, either.

[T Monk]

4. thanks (:-)= Bush Family is looking a lot like the Romanoff's these days

[calimary]

6. Yeah. No kidding!

};>

('Cause I like the thought of wearing antlers!)

[thunderdog]

5. Capitalists always survive. They invent their way out of things.

At some point in the future, a capitalist will invent a new form of energy. And he will do it simply because there is a demand for it.

[Selatius]

7. Inventors invent. Capitalists own. A shareholder no more invents than an elephant flies.

Not all of history's great inventors invented things for pure material gain.

[thunderdog]

9. Capitalists and inventors are one in the same. An inventor owns his invention

and a capitalist invests in his invention.

I could name many, but Thomas Edison epitomized the essence of the inventor capitalist/capitalist inventor.

[ConsAreLiars]

15. Name one billionaire who invented anything other than a scam. (nt)

[BigDaddy44]

20. Okay

Michael Dell invented a new, direct order model for computer sales and distribution that allowed you to custom order a computer and get it in a matter of days.

Sergey Brin and Larry Page invented new algorithms for search that greatly revolutionalized how we find information, and resulted in Google.

Shall I continue?

[ConsAreLiars]

38. Both examples prove my point.

All Dell did was use established marketing techniques to set up a business to sell stuff. He didn't come close to inventing anything, certainly not the first laptop, although maybe he was first in selling those which offered spontaneous combustion as a new feature.

Google was developed using the resources of Stanford U. to use a previously published search technique to map out net content and do the beta testing. Their success was not the due to the algorithm, which they did not invent, but using that algorithm to bring relevant advertising into the results sent to the user, and getting the financial backing to get their enterprise going.

[BigDaddy44]

45. So how are either of these scams?

I've owned a couple of Dells. They've served me quite well. I use Google every day.

[thunderdog]

31. By today’s standards, Henry Ford was a billionaire.

Were the Model T and the assembly line mere scams?

[ConsAreLiars]

39. That is so far in the past it has no relevance.

Capitalism at the highest levels is now a system of financial scams, and nothing more.

[thunderdog]

48. Check mate.

[eShirl]

23. fetchez la vache

since we're already catapulting

[Orsino]

18. Capitalism is the default.

Socialism requires education and technology to support it.

[thunderdog]

32. Socialism is the economic system of losers.

For it allows the slothful to exploit and enslave the industrious.

[Hannah Bell]

40. same with capitalism. since the top 1% own most of the country,

& never do a lick of work.

[lonestarnot]

47. And 70% of Americans have NO net worth.

:(

[Orsino]

46. Except for socialized police and fire departments, of course...

...and Social Security and Welfare, and socialized highways.

And bringing peace, and public baths.

Enjoy your stay. :hi:

[thunderdog]

52. Many fire departments and rescue personnel are made up of volunteers.

However, like the armed forces, the police force is a mandated function of society at large.

Thanks you.

[devilgrrl]

53. You're right. How suck-ass would it be having to live in Sweden or Canada?

What fucked up countries those are!



Go crawl back underneath your bridge.

Pillock!

[eShirl]

24. no, they exploit their way out of things

[thunderdog]

33. Since use, develop and make the most of are all synonymous with exploit, I agree.

[T Monk]

26. capitalist inventions include fascism, flex mortgages, pervasive fraud and advertizing

and planned obselescence

[thunderdog]

34. Inasmuch as fascism is a variant of socialism, your assertion is demonstrably false.

And as long as there are men and women inhabiting the earth, there will be fraud.

[wuushew]

35. fascism is not a variant of socialism

I don't know how you could think otherwise.

[thunderdog]

49. Come on, this Political Science 101. If you don’t believe me, Google "National Socialist Party."

Fascism is merely right-wing socialism. But the right/left analogy is not important. The crux of the matter is freedom. And socialism (right or left) or any other ideology that does not respect the individual is antithetical to freedom.

[T Monk]

36. that's a new one on me

[tama]

8. Problem goes deeper

Literally, to the soil. System (=civilization) that destroys forests and mines top-soil that all life depends on by civilized agriculture is simply suicidal. On planetary scale civilization equals cancer.

[The Inquisitive]

11. not so, we've simply reached a diseconomy of scale in regards excessive throughput

No one noticed the transition from the cowboy economy in which there was always an overthere, always more land and resources to fuel an infinite expansion creating the notion that consumption and production are always inherently good, to a spaceman economy in which we recognize the finite closed nature of the energy system we inhabit, where the focus becomes a constant reduction of throughput while attempting to increase standard of living. This is of course possible through constant technological progress that emphasizes reducing inputs to produce the same or supieror outputs. The biosphere is remarkably resilient and allows for a certain tolerable amount of pollution, and destruction, it's a matter of remaining within these confines. To go so far as to say human civilization equals planetary cancer is counter productive, and melodramatic.

Market's simply need to be redesigned to take into account the now realized physical limitations of our ecosystem. Dynamically efficient allocation must be redefined in the mainstream to include temporal considerations. Mind you this is no easy task, the political obstacles that stand in our way at some times seem insurmountable. Hopefully we make the transition smoothly and mankind survives the lesson, and our species caries successfully as earth's premier sentient being.

[tama]

21. Yes so

You seem to understand the basics of "cowboy economy" (aka "civilization") relatively well. Very simple fact is that every civilization is based on cutting down the forests - which is the maximal ecosystem that most efficiently ads the biomass of the soil which is the most basic ecosystem - and then destructively using up the soil by "civilized" agriculture until it loses natural fertility: can you name one civilization from China to Mesopotamia etc. that has not done so, that is any civilization that is not inherently suicidal?

There is nothing "melodramatic" about this simple fact. What is melodramatic is clinging to the idea that "civilized" man with ability to destroy the whole biosphere is somehow superior to the "primitive" man that lived in balance with nature for millions of years, the idea that "might makes right".

[The Inquisitive]

28. fair enough

Yes, civilization by nature requires organized agriculture in order to support non-food producing specialists, that is a fact. Forests are cleared to make way for farmland, this is true as well. Likewise as population expands marginal lands are used to meet caloric demands, which due their increasing marginal nature of quality are continually more prone to land and soil degradation. But like I said, this was all presumed on the now realized incorrect notion that land would always be infinitely plentiful, the realization of global scarcity of all natural commodities is now smashing into us like of ton of bricks. I'd agree with you're argument if it were phrased, 'historically civilizations, in regards to perpetual agricultural expansion exhibit characteristics similar to that of a cancerous growth. It's patterns of production and consumption brings about the inevitable collapse of the energy system upon which it is dependent." Perhaps I am misinterpeting your argument is this is indeed what your saying in which case I guess we completely agree. I will admit that my accusations of being melodramatic we're reactionary, as I often hear such arguments as yours but very poorly articulated, by less than educated individuals, but I feel this is not the case with you.

However the point at which I believe you and I digress is whether civilization by it's very nature inevitably must march to it's own suicide. Without writing a book of a post here it's contention that industrial human society can function perpetually on the biosphere and remain within the ecological confines of the earth and achieve a balance and efficient equilibrium of both human industrial and natural capital. Additionally I'd assert that mankind is begin to mobilize under the realization that civilization in it's current form will bring about our ruin. I realize I have left this paragraph unsubstantiated, but I am currently in a hurry, and would be more than happy to revisit this debate later this evening time permitting.

I'll also try to address the arguments you made in response to my other post when I can.

[tama]

29. Don't know about

industrialism, I still have serious doubts that it can be ever done in a truly sustainable way. I wouldn't mind truly sustainable electricity (by wind) at all, but better not to create false hopes ;). But I'm happy to find out that not all agriculture is necessarily harmfull, but that "natural farming" as practiced by Fukuoka really works, that permaculture and "Garden of Earth" is a real possibility: http://fukuokafarmingol.info/faplow.html

and other articles from the site http://fukuokafarmingol.info/farchive.html

I'm currently reading (and parroting :)) this book available on net: THE FINAL EMPIRE: THE COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION AND THE SEED OF THE FUTURE http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/index.html

The beginning part is, as expected, quite depressing and hard to endure emotionally, haven't yet got into the good part about the seed of the future.

As for "civilization", it is just a word that we give meaning to, hopefully we can give it a new meaning together with nature. Change from civilization of control into civilization of adapting.

[El Pinko]

10. The effects of global warming are going to be negligent compared to those of population growth

I'm sorry, but the religious faith some people have that Climate Change WILL destroy all human life, inundate 20 meters of shoreline, turn huge areas into desert, etc is premature and rather annoying.

And no, I'm not a "denier" but any scientist will tell you that the outcomes of climate models are by no means a given, so making these wild assumptions is almost childish.

The effects of overpopulation will be much more disastrous and immediate and are already being felt in the form of commodity shortages, which will probably only get worse. As more forest are felled to try to grow food, environmental degredation becomes more widespread and clean water that much more rare.

The rich are aware of this and are doing all they can to fortress themselves away from the cloring hordes.

Seriously, the amount of attention giving the Warming phenomenon (whose effects have been mild and which almost certainly cannot be reversed) compared with the crisis situation of global overpopulation - already 6.6 billion people on a planet that can really only support about 4 - boggles my mind. With strong contraception programs, and getting religious groups on board, it would be possible to get population growth down to zero within a generation - this would do more to save the earth's environment than avery American switching to a Prius.


I'll be willing to pay any challenger $100 if there is even ONE meter of sea level rise before 2030, much less 20.

[The Inquisitive]

13. Some good news on population

we've below the replacement rate in terms of fertility in the developed world. Fertility is plummeting world wide, even in the developing world. Current forecasts predict that based on current trends world population will peak around 8.9-9 billion by 2050, and then begin decreasing. The vast majority of this growth will take place in the developing world whose consumption levels already are pretty minimal in relation to ours. Though the addition of a couple more billion humans to the global population is nothing to scoff at. I agree with you're forecast. Per capita farmland is decreasing as population increases, and the gains made from the green revolution in regards to agriculture have peaked, and in some areas are even beginning to reverse due to long term damage to the oil due to pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer over use. I suspect food prices will be quite high in the coming years, along with the other essential commodities.

I too hate this psuedo-religious fervor many have in terms of global climate change marking the inevitable extinction of mankind. Such fatalistic misanthropic sentiments are quite useless in my opinion. Humanities secular population seems to have developed a 'self-esteem' problem in terms of all of humanity regarding the species as a cancer upon the earth.

[tama]

22. Speciest projection

Eurocentric "civilized" people have strong tendency of accusing all of humanity, including all "primitive" peoples who lived in balance with nature for millions of years, for the cancer-like ecological destruction of civilization. That projection goes back to the "manifest destiny" idea that Europeans (and now especially Euro-Americans) need to "civilize" all members of the "human species".

[Jamastiene]

12. You make some very good points.

This monopoly that the greediest for of capitalism has right now is destroying the very thing we need to live. Not smart.

[taught_me_patience]

14. Capitalists will always survive

You are going to be waiting for a long time, if you think it will fail.

[T Monk]

25. not when they lose the loyalty and protection of the police and military

[Prophet 451]

16. They have several ideas

Some of them, like Chimpy, assume they will be dead by the time the crisis becomes visible (it's visible now but you know what I mean). Others imagine they will have their little spot in paradise, perhaps in the Bahamas. Of course, it's also possible that a few are imaging getting off this rock when the proverbial hits the fan (see Ben Elton's Stark for a comedy based on this concept).

[Hannah Bell]

41. Who's gonna do the work for them in their little paradise?

They gonna pick coconuts?

If we don't survive, they don't either. Not in their current incarnation, anyway.

[Prophet 451]

43. Trained monkeys perhaps?

Dude, I'm spitballing here. I have no idea how these people think.

[depakid]

17. Peak oil will do in corrupt neo-liberal corporatism long before then

[blindpig]

19. It ain't "extreme capitalism"

It's capitalism, period. There's no reforming this thing, the New Deal was an attempt at that, and look, here we are again, Roaring Twenties redux. The logic of capitalism allows for no other. They will seek to expand profits no matter what, no matter what suffering they cause, no matter the finite limits of the Earth. If we do not adopt socialism and have a planned economy which serves people's needs and not the capitalist's wants things will surely be harder than they need be. It has been said that it's a choice between capitalism and a habitable planet, and it's looking truer every day.

[thunderdog]

30. Regarding a "planned economy:"

I have no problem with you and other like minded individuals getting together to "plan" an economy. You would be free to socialize health care, child care, elder care, or whatever. Think about it, you all could join together and establish a full blown commune. You could ban politically incorrect jokes, outlaw SUV's, the eating of meat, the ownership of property, etc.

All I would ask in return is that you reciprocate and allow me and my like minded brethren to live our lives as we see fit; free from interference from you and those who have chosen to live like you do.

Doesn't this sound like a wonderful idea? Live and let live?

[Batgirl]

37. All you have to do is close your eyes and click your heels together 3 times

while repeating in a soothing, sing-song voice "there's NO place like Galt's Gulch ... there's NO place like Galt's Gulch!"

Assuming of course you are wearing your magic ruby slippers.

[Hannah Bell]

42. Except that capital doesn't live & let live. It has to expand, therefore

it is inevitably found trying to take other people's stuff. Usually by force or fraud; the basis of all the great capitalist fortunes.

[thunderdog]

50. Marx has long been PROVED to be wrong with respect to economics;

there have been many "petri dishes" of life which have debunked his regressive, backward thinking theories. Nevertheless, many of the 60's crowd still cling to the notion his proletariat dictatorship. But the 60's were a long, long time ago. In fact, by today's standards, the 60's were very primitive times. Marx's ideas were/are primitive too--they are dead. Long live capitalism.

[blindpig]

44. Your assumptions display your ignorance

As Hannah stated above, there is no living with capitalism, it's nature and mandate demand expansion. Which is why capitalist nations are forever hostile to socialist nations. Consider the US Cuba policy. There ain't no living with Capitalism on this planet, it must be exterminated.

As per your assumptions about my predilections, quite a bucket of giggles there. I'm plenty 'incorrect' and am very carnivorous, bring your kitty over my house and I'll eat it. See? And it ain't property per se, you dope, it's property as the means of production, we'll just stop making those SUV's if the people deem that the proper course.

[thunderdog]

51. No, my friend, it is you who has displayed your own ignorance.

For the petri dish of history has proven the superiority of capitalism. Furthermore, while I have proclaimed my desire to let the backward thinking amongst us live their lives as they see fit, you have expressed your desire to perpetrate genocide on the capitalists of the world.

Thus, you have made it abundantly clear who the aggressors are. They are the socialists.

[4_TN_TITANS]

27. By and large business is short-sighted.

Even for the capitalists, it would make sense to pursue some long term self preservation but they won't.