Is capitalism really compatible with preserving the Planet? Serious socialists say "No", and add that argument to the many arguments about the necessity of ending this exploitive system and replacing it with a genuinely sustainable system that would restore the human-nature balance, address the huge range of unsolved and potentially catastrophic global problems, and put an end to the powerful economic interests in war.
Question for the more pro capitalist posters
Thu, 2009-07-23 15:35
#1
N.Beltov
Question for the more pro capitalist posters
Thu, 2009-07-23 15:42
#2
If people can figure out a way to exploit saving the planet then it could fly. Unfortuantely there is more money in destroying it. Markets don't have consciences and corporations have enough diffuesd responsibilities to keep anyone from taking ownership of the harm they cause.
Thu, 2009-07-23 15:46
#3
N.Beltov
Fidel: Ha. Mind you, please don't get in the way of such views freely expressed. I'm genuinely curious.
Thu, 2009-07-23 15:47
#4
[tongue in cheek]There are no pro-capitalist posters here, N. Beltov[/off] 
Thu, 2009-07-23 15:47
#5
If people can figure out a way to exploit saving the planet then it could fly. Unfortuantely there is more money in destroying it. Markets don't have consciences and corporations have enough diffuesd responsibilities to keep anyone from taking ownership of the harm they cause.
I don't know, there is only a finite amount of money that can be made in its destruction. However, there is a lot more money that can be made of its exploitation and coupled with the proper forms of investment - why does that exploitation need to stay on Earth? Given the necessary needs of extracting various products from the Earth, the only way that unbounded capitalism (fuelled mostly by greed, somewhat by blind arrogance) can succeed is through sci-fi solutions.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:01
#6
N.Beltov
P B: Those sci-fi solutions - terraforming comes to mind - were partially addressed by J B Foster in a video of his I saw recently. I will try to provide a link by editing this entry.
Edited to add: Here is the link. It is a lecture of about an hour by Foster called "One World Ecology". In it, Foster eviscerates the arguments put forward by so-called "Eco-realists" like Easterbrook.
I think those sorts of solutions are a kind of deus ex machina for capitalism. A sky hook, literally, in which current social and property relations are preserved by recourse to an extraordinary solution.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:05
#7
Snert
Which kind of capitalism? Laissez-faire is generally used when one wants a very unfavourable comparison.
And what other variables can or would change? We could abolish capitalism this instant, but if we all celebrated with a free car from the People's Lada Factory, I think we'd still end up on a dying planet. If people celebrated by having baby #6, I think we'd still end up on a dying planet. If people think that socialism can't make the same mistakes capitalism makes, a la Chernobyl, then I think we'll still end up on a dying planet.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:07
#8
Well I must answer because certain things about the NDP are definitely true. The NDP is a party of political populism, mixed markets, and heavily regulated capitalism. And right now, heavily regulated capitalism should appeal to most of the orphans of a political and economic ideology that has proven folly at least twice now since 1929. The NDP are social democrats and believe in a democratic and collective solution to real world problems. Because without a democratic and collective approach, wars over scarce resources is the inevitable result. Socialism or barbarism? We're already treading down one of those two paths, and the world's left doesnt seem to have either the stomach or the resources for violent and bloody revolution. We need to convince more supporters of the pragmatic centre and undecideds of the very undemocratic nature of the political groups they support by their votes and by their abstaining from voting, and all the while the ideology falls apart around them. It's looking very good for the NDP right now, imo.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:08
#9
N.Beltov
I forgot to mention the ideological agnostics. However, if you're going to make capitalism as part of your eclectic bag of tricks, (this is addressed to you, Fidel) then you're just as required to defend the system as its most sincere and direct apologists.
To re-iterate - I don't really believe that capitalism is compatible with saving the Planet. Unless new social and property relations come to dominate economic life, we'll just wind up back in the same fix in some distant, or not so distant, future. And there's very little time left.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:12
#10
N.Beltov
Snert, the argument about what kind of alternative, or, in my own view, what kind of socialism, could be a very long one indeed. So I'm trying to leave that alone, for now, anyway.
Since a number of posters have already made reference to the problems of actually existing, or formerly existing, socialism, I should make it clear that I mean actually existing capitalism, not the theoretical models of neoclassical orthodoxy in which the market solves every problem, real or imagined, and so on. Capitalism, not socialism, has got us into this mess. Therefore, capitalism should get us out of it.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:13
#11
Come on! Ladas were never free and still arent under state capitalism in today's Russia. That country is still heavily reliant on rail and air for long distance travel and transport. The roads are atrocious.
And laissez-faire was revived with the "new" Liberal capitalism since Milton Friedman, von Hayek, the Chicago School of rightwing economics etc
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:19
#12
N.Beltov
OK, I'm taking a break but I will check in to read and respond to the remarks. à bientôt.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:25
#13
Snert
I tend to believe that capitalism, exactly as it is right now, would not be compatible with saving the planet. I think there's room for greater checks and balances in the system (particularly, initially, those involving resources, sustainability and the environment) while still supporting those components of capitalism that, for good or bad, simply make a basic sense to people (eg: profiting from your own risk or labour).
I've also never assumed that capitalism, exactly as it is right now, is necessarily going to be the way it is in 100 years, or 10, or even necessarily 2. Some say "it's too late!!", and that may be true (in which case, let's party and make happy corpses when we go!) but assuming it's not, I tend to hold out hope that we'll take corrective action which (probably) won't be to discard anything and everything capitalist overnight.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:37
#14
How much capitalism, snert? At what point do we reduce all economic activity to the bare essentials: food production, health care, education, housing and basic infrastructure? How much more than that can the planet afford to provide for us? Because I think that capitalists' cold war era promise to the world for middle class prosperity based on consumption was a colossal lie.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:43
#15
Snert
How much capitalism, snert?
I suppose as much as the planet can support (or as little as is necessary to save it).
And again, without accounting for other variables, it's hard to say. I expect that the earth could support half our population under capitalism better than twice our population under socialism or anarchy or whatever other alternative.
Thu, 2009-07-23 16:51
#16
And again, without accounting for other variables, it's hard to say. I expect that the earth could support half our population under capitalism better than twice our population under socialism or anarchy or whatever other alternative.
But you seem to be saying that socialism and unsustainable population growth go hand in hand. That's not true. Countries with the highest fertility rates(and some of the worst infant mortality rates) have been under economic tutelage of western capitalist institutions for a long time.
Thu, 2009-07-23 17:01
#17
Snert
But you seem to be saying that socialism and unsustainable population growth go hand in hand.
I don't believe that to be the case. I just think that population is a variable that can't be countered by the political economy variable (or in other words, without changing the number of humans on this rock, I don't think it will matter which political economy we choose).
Thu, 2009-07-23 17:11
#18
[url=http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/poor_countries_need_freedom_and_chil... countries need freedom � and children[/url]
Old-age security and pensions
What do pensions have to do with population control? A lot, actually. As several economists have shown, the establishment of public pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) pension schemes is among the main reasons for the rapid decline in birth rates during the 20th century. Cultural reasons played a role in that development, but public pensions sealed the coffin. ..
Sat, 2009-07-25 16:42
#19
On the planet I tend to take the Carlinian perspective http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
As for Capitalism it depends on what you mean by it. Socialism in essence is created within the enclosure of and is a form of capitalism. The basic tenents for capitalism are surplus labour driven by a totalized discourse of production and a system of involuntary work done for the sake of that productive out put.
A system of mutualism and or even coucil communism would still entail a base level of capitalism which could still yet return to its more crude and mean financial profit driven form.
Mon, 2009-07-27 06:38
#20
Is capitalism really compatible with preserving the Planet? Serious socialists say "No", and add that argument to the many arguments about the necessity of ending this exploitive system and replacing it with a genuinely sustainable system that would restore the human-nature balance
More and more advertising, PR and donation/foundation/research money is going towards sophisticated ways of saying that capitalism is indeed compatible with preserving the planet.
Capitalism is not inconsistent with eco-fascism, which would have no problem with people dying due to drought or whatever.
Precisely what is the "human-nature balance"? Capitalists/fascists could say it could be "restored" by letting people die. Actually, that is what capitalists say now, but they do it through very expensive PR people who don't use those exact words. Plus, capitalists let people die more slowly than fascists.
Mon, 2009-07-27 08:51
#21
Capitalism requires growth.
The UK's attempt to rein in greenhouse gases by pursuing several alternative courses was found wanting this week, according to the BBC.
As a cabinet minister explained: "Jonathan Porritt last week praised our Low Carbon Transition Plan which is backed by active steps to make sure firms in the UK grab the growth and job opportunities in nuclear, renewable, electric car and other growth industries."
Johathan Porritt, the government's green energy czar in charge of developing a sustainable economy has just resigned in frustration at the bureaucratic barriers.
Mon, 2009-07-27 22:33
#22
N.Beltov
The following may be of interest to those reading this thread.
As John Bellamy Foster explained in "The Ecology of Destruction" (Monthly Review, February 2007), Marx explored the ecological contradictions of capitalist society as they were revealed in the nineteenth century with the help of the two concepts of metabolic rift and metabolic restoration. The metabolic rift describes how the logic of accumulation severs basic processes of natural reproduction leading to the deterioration of ecological sustainability. Moreover, "by destroying the circumstances surrounding that metabolism," Marx went on to argue, "it [capitalist production] compels its systematic restoration as a regulating law of social reproduction"-a restoration, however, that can only be fully achieved outside of capitalist relations of production.1Recent developments in Cuban agroecology offer concrete examples of how the rift can be healed, not simply with different techniques but with a transformation of the socio-metabolic relations of food production ...
Metabolic Restoration in Cuban Agriculture
Mon, 2009-08-03 11:30
#23
Sunny Canuck
Since a number of posters have already made reference to the problems of actually existing, or formerly existing, socialism...
Well, if historical failed implementations are not sufficient cause to pause and reflect - perhaps you would prefer a more grounded philosophical, principled discussion on socialism? Maybe through such a discussion, we could pintpoint precisely why it failed, over and over again.
Capitalism, not socialism, has got us into this mess. Therefore, capitalism should get us out of it.
I would argue that "statism" - government intervention into market economies got us into this mess, and every major mess, since 1929... and even earlier (see: railroads...). For instance, the market crash of 1929 was made possible by government intervention. The "fiat" monetary system - enforced and overseen by the Federal Reserve - made it possible for influential assbags to take control of both the money supply and interest rates... which when manipulated... plunged the economy into ruin and made possible the greatest swindle in the history of modern economy. What was the solution to this failure of government intervention? Crony, crooked "capitalists" were used to scapegoat "capitalism" and more, not less, government intervention was used re: New Deal.
Your original question - is capitalism compatible with the environment. The real question should have been - do people really care about the environment? Because it is their individual consumption choices that drive capitalist enterprise - not the other way around. Turn off your light switches, stop running your cars, stop buying plastics... and the capitalists will find solutions to meet your changing demands.
Mon, 2009-08-03 11:55
#24
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
I believe that capitalism could be a component of the solution. I believe that as a system of economic incentive and innovation, it has proven far more successful than its alternatives. That said, I think that it must be strictly regulated and monitored. It must be oriented and tuned towards meritocracy, rather than the class-based oligopoly that we see today. Inherited wealth must be controlled, and ideally eliminated - though I think that would be a battle too hard to win. Heavy taxation of inheritances - say 50% - could eliminate undeserved dynasties of wealth within a couple of generations, though. Monopoly must be fought at every opportunity. And I believe in the death penalty for sociopathic corporate entities, though not for individuals.
Natural resources would always remain in the hands of the state. I'll try to elaborate my vision further, but the real world demands my time at the moment...
Mon, 2009-08-03 12:02
#25
Sunny Canuck
It must be oriented and tuned towards meritocracy, rather than the class-based oligopoly that we see today.
Could you elaborate on this?
Inherited wealth must be controlled, and ideally eliminated - though I think that would be a battle too hard to win. Heavy taxation of inheritances - say 50% - could eliminate undeserved dynasties of wealth within a couple of generations, though.
This seems a slightly counter intuitive to human nature. I have children - whom I value above all else. I work to provide for them - not for random strangers. Would you have me pay a 50% tax on all payments, goods and services provided to my children - the "undeserving" as refer to them? Or simply when I die - the true inheritence? What makes them deserving while I'm living but undeserving when I die?
What is your basis for determining who is the "deserving" versus the "undeserving"? What criteria do you apply? Do you apply the same criteria to social assistant recipients?
Mon, 2009-08-03 12:39
#26
remind
Capitalism requires growth.
Fascism doesn't.
Really...there is little room between the corporate control of society that we have today, and fascism. And those little finishing details are being worked out, as we speak.
Manufactured wars? What about manufactured recessions as just another component of war?
Mon, 2009-08-03 12:49
#27
Sunny Canuck
Really...there is little room between the corporate control of society that we have today, and fascism. And those little finishing details are being worked out, as we speak.
What is your evidence?
Manufactured wars? What about manufactured recessions as just another component of war?
Again - evidence?
Mon, 2009-08-03 13:42
#28
remind:
"Really...there is little room between the corporate control of society that we have today, and fascism. And those little finishing details are being worked out, as we speak.
Too true, remind. Too true.
Mon, 2009-08-03 13:43
#29
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Inherited wealth must be controlled, and ideally eliminated - though I think that would be a battle too hard to win. Heavy taxation of inheritances - say 50% - could eliminate undeserved dynasties of wealth within a couple of generations, though.
This seems a slightly counter intuitive to human nature. I have children - whom I value above all else. I work to provide for them - not for random strangers.
I believe I addressed the human nature of which you speak when I admitted that completely eliminating inheritance would be a fight I'd hesitate to take on.
Beyond that, I think perhaps you need to read the terms you agreed to when signing up for this board. No one here is obliged to waste their time defending the basics of progressive politics & economics. If you lack an understanding of them, you would probably benefit from reading the threads here rather than posting yourself for a while.
Mon, 2009-08-03 13:58
#30
remind
Corporate control of:
1. governments
2. media
3. tax payer's money
4. the police force
5. crown land and resources
6. private land not their own
7. vertical integration of food supply and finished products
8. genetical patents
9. wealth concentration to even fewer
10. wars over resources and their extraction
11. multiple countries military infrastructure and using them as private armies for coporate occupation
12. global social infrastructure
Mon, 2009-08-03 15:06
#31
Sunny Canuck
I believe I addressed the human nature of which you speak when I admitted that completely eliminating inheritance would be a fight I'd hesitate to take on.
Maybe it was my misinterpretation. I understood your meaning to be that inheritence was "wrong" and that it should be eliminated. I simply asked the basis of that rationale - nothing more. If I misinterpreted, you have my apologies.
Beyond that, I think perhaps you need to read the terms you agreed to when signing up for this board. No one here is obliged to waste their time defending the basics of progressive politics & economics. If you lack an understanding of them, you would probably benefit from reading the threads here rather than posting yourself for a while.
No - no one is obliged to waste their time anywhere, for any reason. I simply opened a thread, with the title "question for the more pro-capitalists..." - and opined on a few of the comments from a specifically capitalist perspective. Was that somehow not in accordance with the terms of use? I've spent a considerable amount of time looking for the "basics of progressive politics" as you described it, here on this forum, but haven't found any critical, philosophical justifications for it. Do you have any links? I'm happy to do the reading on my own.
Mon, 2009-08-03 15:12
#32
Sunny Canuck
Corporate control of:
1. governments
2. media
3. tax payer's money
4. the police force
5. crown land and resources
6. private land not their own
7. vertical integration of food supply and finished products
8. genetical patents
9. wealth concentration to even fewer
10. wars over resources and their extraction
11. multiple countries military infrastructure and using them as private armies for coporate occupation
12. global social infrastructure
Are you restricting this to Canada and/or the USA? Other than a couple of those items, I would imagine you must have access to more comprehensive data, or specific information on how corporations control or own them. Isn't this getting a little off topic from the OP? I'm happy to discuss some of those points individually though - as the full list would likely lead to massive individual posts...
Mon, 2009-08-03 15:15
#33
remind
Social justice and equality, pretty much sums it up.
I see you ignored my response to your questions of what indicators indicate we are in the midst of a fascist control of the world.
Denial is a terrible thing, but not quite as bad as greedy not caring.
Mon, 2009-08-03 15:15
#34
N.Beltov
Well, if historical failed implementations are not sufficient cause to pause and reflect - perhaps you would prefer a more grounded philosophical, principled discussion on socialism? Maybe through such a discussion, we could pintpoint precisely why it failed, over and over again.
Cuba has been socialist since the early 1960's , despite an undeclared state of war from the juggernaut to the north, and has retained their social system despite the collapse of the SU in the early 1990's. It is far from failed and, in fact, in sustainable agriculture it is showing the way.
A good discussion, however, might be why, under capitalism, economic crashes and depressions happen over and over again with all their devastating consequences for millions and billions of people? Like, er, the one right now?
In regards to the other gobble-dee-gook, ...
The real question should have been - do people really care about the environment?
The practical and pressing question is what is required to save the planet's biosphere which is currently under continuing threat from this monstrous socio-economic system with its idolatry of profits and accumulation of surplus to the exclusion of all other goals? Does humanity need to jettison capitalism to save the planet? I think the answer is yes, and the sooner the better.
Mon, 2009-08-03 16:25
#35
Sunny Canuck
I see you ignored my response to your questions of what indicators indicate we are in the midst of a fascist control of the world.
Denial is a terrible thing, but not quite as bad as greedy not caring.
Ignored? I thought I quoted your factors... and asked you to pull out a couple so that we could discuss them. Simply posting a short hand list - and expecting me to take, at face value, rather bold assumptions without any discussion is a little presumptuous.
Mon, 2009-08-03 16:35
#36
remind
Oops, I missed that post of yours, not that it maters as the list is more than concrete, as any aware person posting here knows.
Mon, 2009-08-03 16:40
#37
Very good, N.Beltov. Capitalism has failed in various world experiments since 14th century Italy. Laissez-faire capitalism collapsed in three recent world experiments under optimal conditions:
[list=1] [*]1900-1929 America
[*] 1973-1985 Chile
[*] 1980 - 2008 America and western world[/list]
None of those experiments conducted in near-perfect laboratory conditions lasted more than 30 years. By contrast, Soviet communism lasted 70 years through vicious cold war era trade sanctions amounting to medieval sieges as well as actual dirty wars and proxy wars conducted to murder an idea. Socialism in one country, or a third of the world at it's peakness, can not work side by side with an opposing ideology for war and concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of a few. The next significant world experiment in Socialism necessarily has to become the dominant ideology worldwide if it is to have a chance of succeeding. Predatory capitalism is the road to serfdom and guaranteed destruction of humanity. Capitalism and corporate-fascism are proven to be a monstrous ideology considering the uncounted number skeletons produced around the world by wars and never-ending famines. One billion chronically hungry people should be proof enough of the need to scrap capitalism and move on to the next phase of human development. Socialism or barbarism? barbarism in this unipolar world since 1991 is clearly not the answer.
Mon, 2009-08-03 16:46
#38
Sunny Canuck
Cuba has been socialist since the early 1960's , despite an undeclared state of war from the juggernaut to the north, and has retained their social system despite the collapse of the SU in the early 1990's. It is far from failed and, in fact, in sustainable agriculture it is showing the way.
That's certainly a fair comparison. Cuba must be considered anything but "failed" - however, non-failure does not equal "success" by any contemporary definition. Cuban citizens sacrifice individual liberty at the point of a gun - almost literally. I'm not disagreeing with you that the Cubans have demonstrated that such a system can work - but, by endorsing the Cuban model, what associated philosophical statements are you making and endorsing? That "society" - an undefined, intangible entity exists above the individual right to life and liberty and the rule of law? An interesting proposition. With respect to the "sustainable agriculture" development you referenced - much of that "sustainable" production is achieved by individual planting and maintaing their own food within their homes. Are you suggesting that that model is "sustainable" or desireable in the rest of the world? I'm not sure about you, but the amount of my time I devote to food production could much better be used assisting people in my specific area of expertise. This "sustainable" method you're championing comes at quite the high price.
A good discussion, however, might be why, under capitalism, economic crashes and depressions happen over and over again with all their devastating consequences for millions and billions of people? Like, er, the one right now?
Well, I did provide an, albeit brief, alternative explanation of the crash of 1929. The current recession has been argued to have originated in a similar extension of government intervention into the market place. In this instance, the use of government policy to force financial institutions into high-risk, unfavourable lending positions (see: subprime mortgages in pursuit of "affordable housing for all") that would otherwise have been declined, precipitated a financial bubble. When it burst, all corollary markets burst with it. What's interesting however, is that the "fractal reserve" system employed by the Federal Reserve (another government institution - intervening in the financial marketplace) - created the necessary associate conditions for financial collapse.
In regards to the other gobble-dee-gook, ...
This doesn't exactly qualify as respectful dialogue... unless you're just being playful... which I can appreciate. :)
The practical and pressing question is what is required to save the planet's biosphere which is currently under continuing threat from this monstrous socio-economic system with its idolatry of profits and accumulation of surplus to the exclusion of all other goals? Does humanity need to jettison capitalism to save the planet? I think the answer is yes, and the sooner the better.
I agree. What is required? While we clearly disagree on the cause of the environmental threats posed by climate change - the question still remains - what is required? Inventiveness, innovation and general creativity are the hallmarks of capitalism - which seeks to increase individual liberties - far more so than any other system. Further, the means to adapt and affect change on any meaningful scale will ultimately require the kind of industrial power and technological infrastructure that only capitalist (mixed economic) societies have demonstrated an ability to produce. Why then do you propose to cut capitalism off at the knees - when it possesses the greatest tools for our salvation?
Mon, 2009-08-03 16:57
#39
Sunny Canuck
Very good, N.Beltov. Capitalism has failed in various world experiments since 14th century Italy. Laissez-faire capitalism collapsed in three recent world experiments under optimal conditions:
[list=1] [*]1900-1929 America
[*] 1973-1985 Chile
[*] 1980 - 2008 America and western world[/list]
None of those experiments conducted in near-perfect laboratory conditions lasted more than 30 years.
Interesting perspective - though, I'm going to have to disagree. America, while close to laissez-faire in 1776 - moved consistently towards mixed economic statism, almost from the word "go". One of the best known examples was the subsidization of the railroad cronies across the continent. Government intervention resulted in a single railroad company operating with impunity across the continent - making lives miserable for anyone that got in the way. Without government assistance, such atrocity never could have happened. I'm not very familiar with Chile - so I'll have to defer that one to you for now.
As for 1980-2008 in America and the western world - surely you can't be serious? "Perfect laboratory conditions for laissez-faire capitalism?" Are you aware of the massive social welfare spending that all western nations engage in? In most of those nations, unapologetc income redistribution takes place according to "progressive" tax schemes which essentially forces individuals who succeed the most - whether through wage or through capital - to bear the largest burden of the social cost. Surely you don't think these conditions reflect, in any way, laissez faire capitalism... do you?
Predatory capitalism is the road to serfdom and guaranteed destruction of humanity.
Serfdom is the condition whereby individuals work for some other purpose, other than their own welfare. In capitalism, individuals work for themselves. In socialism and communism - individuals work for the "collective". Which one best reflects true "serfdom" according to the textbook definition of the word?
Mon, 2009-08-03 17:09
#40
but, by endorsing the Cuban model, what associated philosophical statements are you making and endorsing?
The Cuban model for first world levels of health care and education haev been endorsed by nobel laureate in economics, Joe Stiglitz, and John Wolfensohn, both former chiefs of the World Bank
And one of the benchmarks economists use in determining status of failed or successful nation states is infant and child mortality. Cuba's infant mortality is better than that of the USA's. About 30 countries with socialized medicine have better infant mortality and overall national health statistics than that country south of us experiencing a meltdown of the new Liberal capitalism, a health care system that costs more than it's worth, and a financial system driven by debt and obscene rates of usury.
Cuba's sustainable model for agriculture is endorsed by Canadian David Suzuki as well as a range of renowned environmental and agricultural groups around the world, including former governor Jesse Helms and Minnesota farmers looking for a more sustainable method than mechanized farming heavily reliant on use of petrochemicals and unsustainable levels of water consumption
Mon, 2009-08-03 17:14
#41
Sunny Canuck
Fidel - the quote you reference was given on the subject of Cuban socialism and the costs to individual liberty - with the question specifically asking what the philosophical rataionle was that supports such a system.
How is your comment, in any way, related to my question that you've quoted?
Again, I'll argue that "non-failed" as a nation state is not the equivalent of "successful" in any meaningful context.
Mon, 2009-08-03 17:32
#42
What kind of philosophical statement are you fishing for wrt Cuba? Philosophically speaking, one can also expect a rational and analytic point of view on the subject at hand of which we are actually veering away from and into the rhubarb patch.
Mon, 2009-08-03 17:41
#43
Sunny Canuck
Well, a philosophical position, from the ground up, would look like this (though we're certainly getting off of N.Boltov's thread now....):
Metaphysically (how we understand the world): Position - existence exists, indisputably, and is available for humans to discover.
Epistemology (theory of knowledge): Position - human capacity for reason and logic are the only tools we're equipped with to discover existence and grow our knowledge... to be passed on to successive generations - unique among all creatures.
Human nature (shared traits): Position - Man is a rational being. Reason, as man's only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual's choice. Accordingly, the freedom to choose, in all things - exercising our only ability to survive - is paramount as an "ideal" above all else.
Ethics (how to behave): Position - Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man-i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man-every man-is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others.
Culminating in the individual statement: I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Mon, 2009-08-03 17:48
#44
Sunny Canuck
Fidel - I certainly think our conversation is going to hijack the thread. Agree to let it die and focus on the other posts that deal more specifically with N. Boltov's opening post?
Mon, 2009-08-03 17:49
#45
Those are very broad and yet narrowly defined tenets of philosophy. Perhaps Aristotlean in nature? It wreaks of US constitutional values whereby individual freedom and liberty rank above all else, and therefore maintaining an open door to enslavement of others. No thank you. Perhaps another time and in an appropriate thread, Sunny Canuck.
Mon, 2009-08-03 20:57
#46
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Well, I did provide an, albeit brief, alternative explanation of the crash of 1929.
Did you think that ideological drivel had some resemblance to a logical explanation?
Mon, 2009-08-03 21:35
#47
remind
Salient post, thank you.
Mon, 2009-08-03 21:52
#48
While I do not see any reasonable arguments that capitalism can harness its inherent properties to save the planet it is true that there is much unecessary waste in the world-capitalist system, even by capitalist standards, and that by merely transforming itself pragmatically towards the elimination of excessive waste capitalism could disperse the weight of its contradictions considerably. At one time capitalism incorporated the welfare state and many social democratic measures, why is it not conceivable that it could now enter into a new era of conciliation with environmental concerns?
Immanuel Wallerstein has suggested that though we are living in a time where social actions as opposed to material-economic circumstances carry more weight in determination of a succesor system we cannot rule out the possibility that a strain of green totalitarianism could prevail wherein social interests in terms of development, democracy and equality are radically subordinated to the combined imperatives of saving the planet and economic "efficiency" as it is framed by elites.
Ultimately what a capitalist is seeking is not money but the security and status of social power which money affords. It so happens to be that in a capitalist institutionalist framework the mainspring of social power stems from the accumulation of wealth, primarlily via market processes. Extra-economic means of accruing social power are less viable in a capitalist institutionalist framework. Since social power and the security and luxury which adheres to it are the ultimate goal of the capitalist one can expect that as traditionally capitalist productivist methods of accumulation become less viable the most astute capitalists will seek to coopt or amalgmate with future dominant trends in ways that will assure the reproduction of their social status. In reality, it may mean an absolute reduction in thier standard of living and conspicuous consumption but not of their social status. Something very similar happened when feudalism unravelled because of its internal contradictions. During the process of unravelling there was an extended period of radical uncertainty, even egalitarian and democratic trends emerged that suggested ominous implications for the ruling nobles. The response of the the most clever elements of the ruling nobility was to combine with and co-opt elements of the bourgeosie in order to maintain their social status. The process of co-optation and synthesis between "progressive" bourgeousie and elements of feudal nobility has been under-recognized and had major implications for the for future development of the capitalist class system.
Mon, 2009-08-03 22:01
#49
In reality, it may mean an absolute reduction in thier standard of living and conspicuous consumption but not of their social status. Something very similar happened when feudalism unravelled because of its internal contradictions. During the process of unravelling there was an extended period of radical uncertainty, even egalitarian and democratic trends emerged that suggested ominous implications for the ruling nobles. The response of the the most clever elements of the ruling nobility was to combine with and co-opt elements of the bourgeosie in order to maintain their social status. The process of co-optation and synthesis between "progressive" bourgeousie and elements of feudal nobility has been under-recognized and had major implications for the for future development of the capitalist class system.
This is a good example of what has occurred within Canadian progressive political circles. Infiltration and appropriation. The feudal nobility had little choice in the matter back then, as rampart scaling technology was improving, with musketry and cannon being introduced.
Tue, 2009-08-04 02:28
#50
N.Beltov
1a. Sunny C: If you're going to adopt the Thatcherite ideological view that society does not exist (her exact words, more or less; an "undefined, intangible entity" - your words) then, of course, by definition, any social goals are illogical since something that does not exist cannot have a goal.But then you're just playing with words. Global problems, especially species extinction problems, deserve more seriousness.
1b. If you're genuinely interested in some discussion of Cuban Agriculture, do a Google search through MonthlyReview using agriculture and Cuba as keywords, and there should be plenty there for you to have a look at. The last few issues have had several articles about innovative Cuban agriculture. I'm sure there are other sources ... but MR is readily available.
1c. It's amusing to read your remarks to the effect that it was "government intervention in the marketplace" (there's that idolatry I wrote about earlier) that was the cause, or main cause, of this most recent capitalist depression. The financialization, or at least the excesses in subprime mortgages, etc., for those with short memories was, in fact, the REMEDY to the 2000 stock market crash and the 2001 recession. The CAUSES of these downturns lie deeper.
It's also amusing because most sober observers aknowledge that it was the war spending, that is, GOVERNMENT spending, which brought the US economy out of the huge trough of the depression that began in 1929.
1d. The egg on the face of people like U of Chicago orthodox economics zombie Robert Lucas, who claimed that the "central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes" is only matched by the stupid grin on the face of Ben Bernake, with his "Great Moderation", something that the late, great John K. Galbraith called "The Economics of Innocent Fraud".
See Bernake and "The Great Moderation" etc.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/foster031208.html
Says Foster: Indeed, the current "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" attitude toward capitalism that Bernanke and Summers above all epitomize will only serve to compound the crisis, with disastrous effects for billions of people around the world.
Amen.
2. The discussion about co-optation and the transition from feudalism to capitalism is interesting and useful. Historical changes of this scale do not happen overnight, there are reverses, and compromises between the formerly dominant classes and newly rising ones make sense. However, and it's a big "but", the range of depth of current global problems, mentioning global warming as just one of many such problems, is going to require a kind of social and/or political revolution that will put all past revolutions to shame.
It's a radical rupture from capitalism to wrest the control of social life towards the common good and away from the anarchy of the market. The solution of ecological and global problems are, I think, inextricably tied together with questions of the nature of the transition from capitalism to (shall we say) "post-capitalism". A whole range of social contradictions have to, it seems, be solved at once, in order to solve any one of them. And, of course, that makes preserving the current system easier. The riddle needs solving. Fast.
Tue, 2009-08-04 02:36
#51
N.Beltov
Just as a kind of reminder of the range of potential catastrophes that need solving, we have (Foster again, sorry!)
Besides global warming, we could make a list of items, each one of which virtually constitutes a global ecological crisis and danger to humanity in its own right. To wit:-overpopulation
-destruction of the ozone layer
-extinction of species (the rate is the highest in 65 million years, 10**3 times "natural" rates)
-loss of genetic diversity
-acid rain
-nuclear contamination
-tropical deforestation
-the elimination of climax forests
-wetland destruction
-soil erosion
-desertification
-floods
-famine
-despoilation of lakes, rivers and streams
-the drawing down and contamination of ground water (loss of aquifers)
-pollution of coastal waters and estuaries
-destruction of coral reefs
-oil spills
-overfishing (2/3 of world's fish stocks being fished at levels at or over capacity)
-expanding land fills
-toxic waste
-the poisonous effects of insecticides and herbicides
-exposure to hazards on the job
-urban congestion
-depletion of natural resources (1.2 Earths needed for each year, evaluated in 1999); both "the tap" and "the sink" are sigificant in that running out of resources and handling the waste must both be considered here
-
Finally, and I think this is useful to remember, the system has certain built-in limitations that are in blatant contradiction to solving the critical issue of global warming as well as a wide selection from the above list. I just don't believe capitalism can cut it and, in fact, what time is left ought to be used to focus on realistic alternatives to this system.
we also have a one world capitalist economy which, while enormously dynamic, is geared to extraction from the direct producer, and where the surplus so collected is accumulated as capital. Capital, self-expanding value, never stops, and spurs further economic growth and so on. Accumulation is associated with the drive for profit and wealth. This system is very exploitative of people and classes, causing massive inequality, etc.. Capitalism is not just the accumulation of capital; the mechanism of competition is key to keep this system going. Competition for surplus, for profits, helps to give this system its enormous dynamism. However, lower rates of growth breed inherent crises. The system has to grow or die.The historical average rates of growth are around 3% annually, which is considered necessary for the system to work. Assuming a steady 3% rate of growth, in 1 century, the world economy will be 16 times its current size; in 3 centuries it will be 4,000 times its present size. Increases in growth also implies the exhaustion of resources at similar rates. Economists tend to pretend that we do not live in a biosphere, that we can grow forever, but this is a delusion.
(The italics in the last part are mine. )