Does Capitalism have any business in a New World Order?

[CraigD]

I share MagnetMan’s conviction that it is undesirable for capitalism – the ordering of society based on the interaction between supply (production) and demand (consumption) – to continue indefinitely as a major shaper of society. However, while applauding many of his ideas about the desirability of an increased sense of coorperation and stewardship among individuals nations, I strongly disagree that the scenario he presents in which the role of capitalism in society decreases, and the reasoning he gives for predicting this scenario.

 

As I understand it, the scenario MagnetMan puts forth can be summarized: a relatively small number of human beings will, via a powerfully persuasive collection of “new age” principles, lead a transforming movement resulting in an overwhelming majority of people thinking and acting in the interest of all people, rather than individuals, families, nations, or other competing organizations. From a statement he makes in post #47,

I can add that by [the United States] cutting itself off from it ancient cultrural heritage with England it was left without noble influence and remains limited to a second-class (merchant) mentality to this day.

I gather that he envisions these leaders as having superior, “first-class”, mentalities, a sort of “new age nobility.”

 

Most criticism of these ideas contended that such a scenario is implausible, and if somehow possible, would have be at great risk of corruption. I agree with these criticism, but not that they lead to the conclusion that capitalism will continue to dominate society for the foreseeable future.

 

The scenario I think likely is: As productivity (the ratio of the amount of human labor to the amount of goods produced) increases due to continued advances in science and science-based practices, the ratio of supply (production) and demand (consumption) will increase. I term this increase abundance, its opposite scarcity.

 

To date, I believe capitalism has been tended to both increase production, while attempting to maintain scarcity, in order to maximize the total market value of products. Though sufficiently successful to allow individuals to acquire great wealth (where the wealthiest individuals have on order of a million (10^6) times the ability to consume as the average individual, attempt to maintain scarcity have tended to be less successful than those to increase production. As a result, even individuals of average or lower wealth are able to consume the same or more than was once possible only for the wealthiest, and to a lesser extent, to enjoy more leisure (spend less time laboring). The difference in wealth and leisure of some of the poorest portions of 21st century society are much better off in general than the peasants of the 12th century, and in areas such as health care and entertainment, better off than 12th century nobles.

 

As the increase in productivity and abundance increases, the distinction between the wealthy and the average will become less significant, until a point is reached where nearly every competent individual has not only everything he needs, but everything he as an individual, wants. Individuals will labor less, and consume more. The supply of money will exceed its demand, and capitalism will cease to dominate society.

 

Out of this abundant society, I hope that significant numbers of people will want goods beyond the ability of an individual to consume, such as programs in basic scientific research and physical expansion into extraterrestrial space. With the de-emphasis of capitalism, these programs will not be perceived as competing for limited resources, and will be less opposed by people who are not enthusiastic about them.

 

The good husbandry of nature so central to MagnetMan’s approach will be, I believe, coincidental to such a society, merely an easily achievable and mutually desirable state of affairs, requiring no great change in human mentality to achieve. The abuse of nature is not, I feel, a fundamental feature of human mentality, but a consequence of scarcity – we pollute and spoil because doing so is cheap, and often economically necessary. Eliminate scarcity, and like any sensible creature, humankind will not suffer the urge to befoul its environment.

 

Although the details of how to realize this scenario are not easily arrived at, the trend toward it is, I think, evident.

 

The strongest and most essential driver toward it is rational, scientific thought, broadly applied.

[MagnetMan]

They are wrong because people will not relinquish their individualism and humanity for the sake of your vision of the future.

 

I have been repeatedly accused of trying to impose a personal vison of the future and in return I have repeatedly shown that all I have done is make duductions from progressive evolutions of the mass consciouness. I have yet to be told where i have erred in my conclusions. In fact I welcome an alternative analysis.

 

The utopia you describe requires the abolishment of all religious practices, the abolishment of nationalism,

A new consciousness will reveal the artificial nature and redundancy of the foregoing.

 

the abolishment of regionalism.

Definately not. In fact the reverse. Regions should be based on water tables and the shots called by those who live above them.

 

But most importantly, the abolishment of individualism.

If you have ever studied an ant colony you will notice that every ant remains an individual - but its personal power is infinitelay magnified by its super-natural connection to the collective. There is no delight greater than that shared with another - and the greater the shared circle the greater the delight. There is no personal triump more insignifinact than that which is not shared by another.

 

An individual has the inherent right to be wrong if they so choose.

Not if it harms another. We will always err and we should always try to correct ourselves

 

So even if you become the grand dictator of earth and messiah with your wizard's wisdom of the proper order for all things in the world, how would you possible get the detractors on-board with your grand plan?

I am reclusive by nature and cannot be bothered with the endless chants of the crowd. My only interst in world order is so that I can sleep peacefully at night and play golf in the day, and not feel responsible for the fact that a child is going hungry to bed anywhere on the planet. There are plenty of exhibitionists out there who love center stage.

 

Your plan is impossible because it leaves no room for anything else but your plan, and you completely ignore the basic human needs in your analysis of societal evolution.

It is not my plan. Clear hindsight provides clear foresight. Evolutionary imperatives dictate life on this planet, not man.

 

I have resisted getting dragged into another conversation with you. Your only aim is to get the whole world to see things exactly as you want them to be. Time and time again in every thread you thank people for their input, but never acknowledge that your grand scheme has flaws - despite those flaws being pointed out to you time and time again.

Let us discuss the flaws from a mass consciousness perspective and leave both me and all the millions of our indivual idiosyncracies out of it.

 

So I have a question. Is your purpose here to begin the takeover of the world? Or is your purpose here to actually engage in debate and learn from those around you - even as those around you have the opportunity to learn from you? I feel like I am on the Coriolis thread all over again.Bill

 

I am here specifically to debate evolutionary trends and have been waiting all along for someone who is interested in a broad view of human development and comparing notes with him or her.

[hallenrm]

This mass shift cannot be cannot be accomplished without returning to a reverential attitude that appreciates the commonalty of our ancestral efforts. This must be followed by an evocation of our intuitive insight that allows us to see ourselves beyond shallow ethnic bigotries and acknowledge ourselves as a single famly of man who share a common origin and now faces a common destination.

 

:cup:

[Uriah]

Wrote this quick, may have left something out and didn't read all above posts so I may add more soon.

 

 

Looking into the future I see captialism failing. Atleast in its current form if a complete rejection of capitalism doesn't happen first. How and why you may ask. It is simple to me and I will try to explain.

 

Firstly, why, capitalism has allowed for companies to grow and prosper. That may sound good but when I say prosper, I must define who prospers. The company right? Yes and no. The owners, shareholders, and the board of directors whom, have a disproportionately larger income than the vast majority of the workers within the company whom, do the majority of the work prosper. How can they get away with this?

 

Well, corporations have been granted individual rights(bad idea) and essentially state rights as well(trying to be put into legislation). They are bond to no geographic location and have no democratic or voting electorate. They are bond by noone... except profits. This allows them to transfer jobs anywhere in the globe they desire, if the current government there permits it. Many will because of the large bribes corporations are able to pay out due to the exploitation of the workers.

 

The current system also places supply over demand; or to say mass production over need. This is extremely inefficient and wasteful. The effects of the waste can be felt and seen in the environment and the cities left in poverty after jobs are transplanted across the globe. The degradation of the environment poses a real threat to the health of not only the local habitat but that of the rest of the world. As people are left in poverty they look to the next job they can get. Many times it is another multinational corporate conglomerate that will do nothing but uproot at the oppurtunity to increase profits. The constrution and destruction of facilities leaves a city looking very unappealing in a superficial analysis and in the health of the environment(profit first). Leaving only the poor to occupy its run down streets who do not have the means to restore the city and environment to a healthy level. This continues around the world.

 

This will lead to a consensus around the world that is appearing now as anti-americanism, -imperialism, -consumerism, -westernization, and -corporatism. The exploited workers will force change by way of revolution or reforming as is happening in Latin America. "Socialist" countries like Venezuela is one to mention but I feel cannot last based on it's centralized structure which translates to me as state controlled capitalism. The power is not completely given to the people although they always have it.

[MagnetMan]

This will lead to a consensus around the world that is appearing now as anti-americanism, -imperialism, -consumerism, -westernization, and -corporatism. The exploited workers will force change by way of revolution or reforming as is happening in Latin America. "Socialist" countries like Venezuela is one to mention but I feel cannot last based on it's centralized structure which translates to me as state controlled capitalism. The power is not completely given to the people although they always have it.

:shrug:

[CraigD]

Looking into the future I see captialism failing.

…

This will lead to a consensus around the world that is appearing now as anti-americanism, -imperialism, -consumerism, -westernization, and -corporatism. The exploited workers will force change by way of revolution or reforming as is happening in Latin America.

This seems to me reasonable and likely (though even the most reasonable predictions of future social change has a history of unreliability).

 

However, I think something much like this occurred though much of the first half of the 20th century, in the form of several communist revolutions, most notably the Russian revolution of 1917. Although “exploited workers” were very successful in overthrowing their governments, most of the new governments were not long-lasting, very few of them surviving to this day, and despite the intentions and best efforts of revolutionaries, capitalism has emerged seemingly stronger as a system of the world than it was before.

 

Revolution, I think, is insufficient and often ineffective for such profound reordering of society. Profound change of the underlying conditions of society is necessary.

[MagnetMan]

However, I think something much like this occurred though much of the first half of the 20th century, in the form of several communist revolutions, most notably the Russian revolution of 1917. Although “exploited workers” were very successful in overthrowing their governments, most of the new governments were not long-lasting, very few of them surviving to this day, and despite the intentions and best efforts of revolutionaries, capitalism has emerged seemingly stronger as a system of the world than it was before.

Communist ideologies lifted rural Rusia and China to world power status inside fifty years. The fundamental problem that spelled failure was the adoption of atheism. Without an absolute standard of moral goodness, the bar was set at state level. The state is run by man. Gradual corruption was ineveitable.

 

Revolution, I think, is insufficient and often ineffective for such profound reordering of society. Profound change of the underlying conditions of society is necessary.

 

Evolution is inevitable. It forces a mass change of consciousness and adaptation to a new paradigm each time regional environmental over-load is reached. This time the over-load is global wide.

[Michaelangelica]

this was one of the best economic lectures i have ever listened to

Try to listen to it live (only there for another week) rather than read the transcript (after a week). Very funny in parts.

Big Ideas

Professor Robert Reich on the essentials for a decent working society in the 21st century.

 

Professor Robert Reich, former US Secretary of Labour under President Clinton, on the essentials for a decent working society in the 21st century. Reich talks about his French designer hips, his Japanese-American car and bottom up economics.

[Mike C]

Capitalism was an excellent tool as a domestic system of exchange during the era of nation building. It encouraged entrepreneurship, invention and the rapid growth of the technologies needed to develop the colonies.

 

Capitalism turned lethal when it went international, ending up in a lost generation of Cold War spending that bankrupted the two International super-powers, threatened the extinction of all life on earth, and left the next generations neck deep in debt.

 

Capitalism is an artiifcial obstruction in the new era of globalization. It is completely incapable of putting the whole world to work in the increasingly urgent business of efficient planet management.

 

I agree with what you say.

As I pointed out, Capitalism is a product of the teachings of the biblibal chauvinism that is exhibited by the lion and his fangs, claws and hair armor.

Capitalism has flourished on the spread of the 'popes' version of Christianity that used the GUN and the Cannon to spread throughout the world. An example of law by weapons.

Our US Constitution is an example of trying to outlaw this chauvinism with a representative government for the people.

It is not working as it should.

 

The bible promotes two factions. They are Day (lion) and night (apes and oxen).

Naturally, the apes have been reduced to nothing but the working or slavery status.

 

So fangs and claws has decided to use the apes (people) to enrich themselves since they CANNOT create any REAL THANGIBLE WEALTH with their brains alone.

They need hands to do that for them.

 

My gripe is that they are too GREEDY and want all the wealth for themselves.

 

My advise to them is 'SHARE THE WEALTH'!

 

Those Chinese coolies and Mexican wetbacks cannot buy the autos and houses that we all want and as humans, need to survive.

 

Mike C

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

It is all to obvious really. Earth is an isolated system with no external resources. This means that we have a limited amount resources, period. Capitalism encourages competition that increases the economic condition of a society. The seperation of different nations creates competition also. Competition forces humans to use up the limited resources available to us at higher and higher rates, exponentially in fact. There will come a time where the resources on this planet will no longer support the state of life. Also, the use of resources to create weapons to kill each other is beyond comprehension.

 

But nature is perfect. This is one reason there is war. The larger a social group becomes, the more likely it is that conflict will cause it to split. When these social groups interact, the same thing occurs. Larger societies tend to produce diseases that become more and more dangerous. Population deals with itself, one way or the other. But our advanced medical technologies are protecting us from the natural order of things. And the effects of nature are becoming greater and greater. The larger the population, the greater the conflict.

 

Eventually, when our resources can not sustain us, there will be conflict on a global scale. There will be death and destruction, until the balance is restored. Then the "new order" will arise. A unified world with the goal of never allowing such a catastrophy to occure again. There will be strict laws to control behavior and belief. This is the only way to ensure the survival of our species. We will arrive at that goal sooner or later. The question is, do we believe our species can actually live forever, or can we understand that all things that come to be must end and try to make the journey as peaceful and gentle as possible?

 

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto

 

"I don't know what World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

-Albert Einstien

 

Einar Waldun

[Mike C]

It is all to obvious really. Earth is an isolated system with no external resources. This means that we have a limited amount resources, period. Capitalism encourages competition that increases the economic condition of a society. The seperation of different nations creates competition also. Competition forces humans to use up the limited resources available to us at higher and higher rates, exponentially in fact. There will come a time where the resources on this planet will no longer support the state of life. Also, the use of resources to create weapons to kill each other is beyond comprehension.

 

But nature is perfect. This is one reason there is war.

 

This quote is contradictory. Yes, Nature is perfect and it does not create wars.

The bible is the source of all conflicts. The 'one god concept' it teaches results is various factions at war to establish who is the one god.

This includes capitalism along with Islam, communism and the popes.

All greedy for power or wealth.

 

The larger a social group becomes, the more likely it is that conflict will cause it to split. When these social groups interact, the same thing occurs. Larger societies tend to produce diseases that become more and more dangerous. Population deals with itself, one way or the other. But our advanced medical technologies are protecting us from the natural order of things. And the effects of nature are becoming greater and greater. The larger the population, the greater the conflict.

 

Eventually, when our resources can not sustain us, there will be conflict on a global scale. There will be death and destruction, until the balance is restored. Then the "new order" will arise. A unified world with the goal of never allowing such a catastrophy to occure again. There will be strict laws to control behavior and belief. This is the only way to ensure the survival of our species. We will arrive at that goal sooner or later. The question is, do we believe our species can actually live forever, or can we understand that all things that come to be must end and try to make the journey as peaceful and gentle as possible?

 

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto

 

"I don't know what World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

-Albert Einstien

 

Einar Waldun

 

Right now, I do not see any immediate danger of any future world wars.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea and Iran are not a hazzard because the retaliation against them could wipe them out.

 

Mike C

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

You must think beyond the immediate future. Your ideas are aimed at a not to distant future, with emphasis on present problems. The only logical outcome for a enclosed system with no release valve is a violent reaction. Whether it be a hundred years from now or a thousand (doubtful), it will occure. The prophets realised this. And although I don't believe in the power of prophecy, I do rely on observation of patterns that are found in all things. Any deviation from those patterns do not negate the application of natural themes, but introduce new ones.

 

Also, you must remember that nature exists completely dependant of human beings. What you and I consider bad and good are simple deductions caused by stimulation. Pleasure and pain, whether physical or emotional, do not constitute what is right and wrong. All things die. For us to assume that war is not a natural occurance is foolish. Animals attack each other when opportunity arises. Monkeys have been observed ambushing other groups of monkeys in territorial conflict. Nature will always work itself out. We have to understand that we are not the center of the universe.

 

I do agree, though, that greed is a major cause of conflict in this world. But can you forget the other cardinal sins; sloth, gluttony, pride, wrath, lust, and envy. Don't you think these too assist in causing pain and suffering amongst others. The cardinal sins are simple, they are egotistical. Ego, the idea that you are independant of those around you, creates a sense that you are more important than the one next to you. This is conflict.

 

Also, are you blaming religion and government, or are you being purposefully specific?

 

"If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also"

-Fred Woodworth

[Queso]

p.s. "a man who doesn't contradict himself is an idiot" - osho

[BEAKER]

...Also, you must remember that nature exists completely dependant of human beings...

Don't you mean, independant?

 

Otherwise I think I agree with pretty much all of your argument.

 

I personally like to attempt to go back to the begining - get to the bottom line so to speak; - get real.

 

If there were only two people on earth; one that worked hard to hunt and fish and build himself a shelter - and another who felt incapable of doing those things for himself, and insisted that the other one share his food and shelter - would the working man be out of line to say; "screw you - get your own food and shelter! - you sponge!".?

 

...And so a war begins.:)

 

Capitalism in it's most primordial form.

[Qfwfq]

Capitalism in it's most primordial form.

So, what you mean is that one guy, not a good hunter or fisher but very clever at making smart deals, had come to have a parchment, or an engraved stone, or whatever primordial form of a document, by which he owned the place and the other guy therefore had to work for both.

...And so a war begins.

;) Or perhaps, yeah, he came to own the place because he had made himself a sword and was good at using it.

 

But, perhaps, the sword's blade was double edged... :naughty:

[Mike C]

I do agree, though, that greed is a major cause of conflict in this world. But can you forget the other cardinal sins; sloth, gluttony, pride, wrath, lust, and envy. Don't you think these too assist in causing pain and suffering amongst others. The cardinal sins are simple, they are egotistical. Ego, the idea that you are independant of those around you, creates a sense that you are more important than the one next to you. This is conflict.

 

Most of the above sins pertain to the biblical deity that represents the lion as the light, day or Sun god with his 'hair armor' signifying chauvinism..

The Jews portray themselves as his 'chosen people'. So this 'one god concept' creates a lot of conflicts as to who is god(?)

 

Also, are you blaming religion and government, or are you being purposefully specific?

 

"If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also"

-Fred Woodworth

 

I said the bible is the root of most, if not all, the hate and conflicts in our human society. All religions are not the same.

 

Our US Constitution mandates a representative government of its citizens. This is NOT an evil government.

The 'self serving' people like capitalists, kings, dictators and you can include the self serving criminals in this category as the ones our government should not represent.

 

I do NOT oppose capitalism as such but as a runaway self serving individuals that create GREAT inequities in the distribution of the wealth the workers create.

It takes a pair of HANDS to do that.

 

Mike C

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Of course I meant to say that nature works independant of us, thank you.

 

Now a comment on the bible. Firs of all, it was written during a time of great instability. It was a step in the life of human existance towards creating some time of order. The assumption of one God was a way to create order in a world that was littered with different types of polytheism. True polytheism is conflictual by nature. So there can be no blame towards the architects of the old testament.

 

And why must there be any conflict as to who is the one GOD? All religions are divinely inspired through perception of themes in existance that pertain to humans and our conditions. They are all the same message, interpreted by humans and therefore are flawed. Interpretation is everything, and if all religions realised that they were in the same boat, they would stop blowing holes in each other.

 

The Bible doesn't cause all of the conflicts in this world, although it is used as a catalyst. The desire for personal power is the cause. And money is the way in which we measure a persons power in this world. Those who wish to have power use religion to do so because of its power over people. Don't blame the religion or the religion's document, blame the abusers.

 

I agree with you for the most part, but you must realise the people are people. I hope that one day the religions can reconcile, but more importantly, the elite that runs this world must be overthrown, otherwise they will continue to pit brother against brother for their own advantage.