what follows capitalism?

[patrick t. cakes]

i'm reading about marx (soc.331) and i understand, in theory, that socialism, then communism
follow in that order, but i don't feel thats going to happen anytime soon, here in america anyway.

so im curious as to theories, speculations etc.. as to what follows our current social structure, which seems to me
a hyper capitalism utterly dominated by corporate hierarchy.

can anyone point me to resources (authors, philosophers, economists etc..) that analyze the future movement of our culture and society, and capitalism in general?

thanks in advance...

[ThomWV]

1. I think its a mistake to mix up economic systems with political systems, but

but to answer your question, fascism follows capitalism run amok.

[KonaKane]

3. Every political system is an economic system.

Isnt it?

[patrick t. cakes]

9. seems to me they're one and the same.

[MajorChode]

26. When has this ever happened historically?

Both Hitler and Mussolini were members of their respective socialist parties. Fascism can sprout from socialism just as easily as from anything else, and arguably easier.

[ThomWV]

29. Calling them socialist Parties did not make them such.

and in each of the two cases you mentioned exactly what I cited happened. Japan too.

[MajorChode]

35. Their ideology did

The parties may have been hijacked, but that didn't make them any less socialist from on onset. Let's try not to rewrite history here.

[struggle4progress]

110. It is hardly credible to claim that Hitler, as one of the very earliest members

of the Nazi party, "hijacked" the party: he was something like the 50th original member. The Nazis, upon seizing power, promptly began imprisoning social democrats (that is, the socialists) and communists. And at no time prior to that does one see any alliance between the Nazis and the social democrats or between the Nazis and the communists

It is true that in the course of organizing, the Nazis briefly allowed all manner of local people to serve briefly as their local spokesmen, in the course of attempting to obtain local confidence; once the Nazis had obtained the desired political results, such local spokesmen were eased out or purged in favor of genuine Nazis. What is indicated, however, is the fundamental dishonesty of Nazi political organizing propaganda, not the "hijacking" of a social movement by Hitler and his thugs

[struggle4progress]

105. You're confused by a translation issue. The socialist party in the Weimar Republic was the

German Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands - SPD). The word often translated as "socialist" in the full name of the Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers Party - Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - NSDAP) was taken from the name of Julius Streicher's tiny antisemitic German Socialist Party (Deutschsozialistische Partei - DSP). Streicher's group chose the name to create and capitalize on possible confusion with the (then) very large SPD; when the Nazis added "sozialistische" to their name, Streicher's group rather promptly disbanded and joined the Nazis

Your claim is analogous to thinking Iran's "Republican Guard" was related to the GOP or to thinking that the "Democratic Republic of Korea" somehow represented a fusion of ideas from the US Democratic and Republican parties

[MajorChode]

124. You're trying to make this an issue of semantics/translation

The bottom line was that Hitler capitalized on the socialist movement (or at the very least the social reform movement) which was very popular at the time. For the purpose of this particular discussion, it doesn't matter than Hitler wasn't fundamentally a socialist. It doesn't matter that Hitler didn't belong to the larger socialist party. My point was that Hitler(and Mussolini) rode to power on the promise of social reform which was very popular at the time. If either of the two had promised stronger support for capitalism they would have never came to power. This flies in the face of the previous poster's assertion that "fascism follows capitalism run amok." Fascism has much more to do with authoritarianism which is independent of socialist or capitalist systems.

[struggle4progress]

143. You're getting closer, I think, but still miss important historical realities

Germany, after the Great War, was in a state of crisis, which produced various attempts to seize control of the state. The Spartacists of 1919 were defeated in part by rightwingers of the paramilitary Freikorps; the Nazi paramilitary Sturmabteilung, which played a Hitler's abortive Beer Hall Putsch four years later, was largely composed of recruits from the Freikorps. The Sturmabteilung played an essential street-thug role for a decade or more in early Nazi history, attacking political opponents of the Nazis (such as socialists and) communists) as well as Jews

The early political program claimed by the Nazis is laid out in the 1920 document "25 points": http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html

Since it was never officially modified, it may be tempting to point to it, but in fact the Nazis later did not often cite it explicitly, and the Nazi program is best assessed by examining Nazi behavior. The "nationalization" portion of the early platform may sound socialist, but in practice it was actually part and parcel of the Nazi anti-semitic program: what was intended by the early Nazi theorist Gottfried Feder, and what was carried out with matching propaganda, was an attack on successful Jewish businesses. Similar remarks apply (say) to the "land reform" piece of the 1920 platform, which in later years was later explicitly explained as envisioning the seizure of Jewish land holdings

The Nazi seizure of power was followed immediately by the explicit suppression of the trade unions and later by the use of slave labor by various capitalist concerns within German, hundreds of which survived the war and eventually paid reparations of one form or another. None of this Nazi history resembles the goals of the moderate and centrist Social Democrats, who were the actual socialists of Weimar Germany and who -- just like the more activist Communists, who despised them -- were later prosecuted as enemies of the Nazi state

[MajorChode]

166. The very link you provided underscores my point

So I'm not really sure why you think I'm missing anything. I'm not trying to outline the entire history of the rise of fascism, I'm simply making the point that fascism most certainly can rise out of socialism just as easily as capitalism. What you are saying may very well be historically accurate, but you haven't contradicted me, nor I you.

[struggle4progress]

211. I don't think Nazism "rose out of socialism": I think the Nazis

dishonestly portrayed themselves in the late 20s and early 30s in whatever way was most useful for the particular audience they were addressing, here or there, while meanwhile the remnants of the Freikorps in the SA attacked and beat the crap out of whatever Social Democrats or Communists came to heckle the current Nazi speaker. In practice, and however they portrayed themselves at various social events, the Nazi Party was composed of rightwingers of various sorts: monarchist authoritarians; nationalists who believed that Germany had lost the Great War because internal enemies had betrayed the country and who wanted revenge on those enemies; volkish enthusiasts in the Wotan societies who wanted Germany to return to the Teutonic forest gods; anti-semites who thought socialists and communists belonged to an international Jewish conspiracy; and so on

Had the socialists and the communists in Weimar Germany maintained a united front, the Nazis would not have come to power. But the Social Democrats regarded the communists as extremists, the communists regarded the Social Democrats as namby-pamby centrists, and this split enabled the Nazis to come to power as an alternative, without ever having an actual majority or the support of the majority of Germans

So I disagree with the idea that Nazism somehow rose out of socialism

[MajorChode]

214. It sounds very much like we are saying the same thing

even if you don't like the way I'm saying it.

I'm not trying to say the Nazis believed in socialism, but they most certainly took advantage of it as it was popular at the time and the Nazis most certainly were populists. So yes, they may have been dishonest, but that's nothing new in politics and regardless they told those who wanted social reforms what they wanted to hear and even accomodated those people to some extent. What the Nazis actually believed in might be one subject for debate, but what they billed themselves as was quite clear and there should be no debate:

The Program of the National-Socialist (Nazi)
German Workers’ Party
(1933)
...
We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort. (emphasis added)

Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts). (emphasis added)

4. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises. (emphasis added)

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/naziprog.html

[KonaKane]

2. Marx didnt put a timeline on any of that.

And for all we know it's going to happen in fits and starts, with bouts of regression here and there. Even though I pretty much left my Marxist days back in college, I think that his prediction is fairly accurate. We are moving toward an altered, more modernized sense of socialism no matter what we do, and I think that's going to be a good and necessary thing.

[patrick t. cakes]

6. thats interesting, and optimistic

i hope thats the case, do you feel, as the above post mentions, that fascism falls in there somewhere? it seems thats where were headed, or in reality are.

[KonaKane]

11. To me, fascism is an aberration between capitalism and socialism

a mutant offspring of authoritarianism and corporatism (see Mussolini) which doesn't really fit into Marx's scheme. That probably looks confusing, but that's honestly where I see it.

[patrick t. cakes]

15. are we simply behind europen societies, by a few generations

as far as our development? seems we might have to go through a rough patch (or rougher)
in our evolution.

[KonaKane]

43. In alot of ways, yes. America has a weird dynamic going on.

We have a national "spirit" that charges ahead, loves to innovate, make things better. Yet, there is a force of near equal strength that is standing on the brakes. As one historian put it (can't recall the name right now) we Americans are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. The more we advance, the higher the hue and cry to regress, slow down, stop and go back to an earlier age.

I reject that, which is why I'm a progressive. Unfortunately, the urge to evolve in this country will most likely be the one swimming upstream all the time.

[tavalon]

81. Very much so

Europe is in the equivalent of their thirties or even heading into their middle age. We are full on adolescent and have been for a fuck of a long time. I never liked that age personally and I hate watching my country floundering in that state.

We're too isolated. We only border two other countries. It encourages us to be xenophobes and arrogant.

[rurallib]

4. just my opinion but monopoly or duopoly should follow capitalism

Once the big boys have cut all the 'little' guys only one or two companies will be left in any field.
This seems to be what's happening already. How many companies make shampoo? Potato chips? Newspapers? on and on -- one or two big guys left in most every field.
Next they must make laws to keep out competitors. And of course that is already happening.

[OnyxCollie]

154. Marx that capitalism would reach a monopoly stage.

It could be assumed then, that capitalism would take over the government at that point, using the government to increase the customer base.

A totalitarian government, Brzezinski claimed, could become more rational, and less arbitrary and terroristic. These characteristics would not be incompatible with totalitarianism, however.

Brzezinski said three restraints fall immediately after a totalitarian government takes over: legal restraints, like the Magna Carta,the Bill of Rights, etc.; restraints from pluralistic elements in a democracy, like unions; and natural restraints, like norms, beliefs, and opinions.

Kinda like the way things are now.

[izquierdista]

5. Collapse

You may want to look at Jared Diamond's writings on collapse. Also, Albert Bartlett has a good 8 part video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY for part 1) on why exponential growth is a flawed assumption. Most of capitalism is predicated on exponential growth (of markets, populations, etc.) and when that axiom is not met, it falls apart.

[patrick t. cakes]

7. thanks!

ill look this this.

[patrick t. cakes]

8. what follows collapse?

massive police state? then what? whats the new economic system after failed cpaitalism?
is it cyclical? back to feudalism?

[izquierdista]

40. Just read the history of the Italian peninsula

Or any area that was the seat of a great empire. Little centers of power form, a collection of city states that provide some organization to daily life. People go about their daily affairs, growing food and making clothes and making use of the ruins to house themselves and take advantage of some of the technology. A Roman acqua-duct may be repaired here or there to provide some water to a limited area for a limited time, but nowhere on the scale the original did, or if properly maintained could. Those that accumulate some money also accumulate power and they dribble it out to serfs who are willing to work for them in return for protection.

If you want a modern example, go live in one of the former Soviet states for a few months. You will see people still living in the buildings the Soviet state built to house them, trying to coax more years out of a building than it really has in it. Huge factory complexes sit idle and rusting (you don't even have to leave the US to see that), but the jobs that they provided and the goods that they manufactured are gone, replaced by some other work around that just quite doesn't. The great mass of people work hard to provide themselves basic necessities of life, but they just manage to break even, while the dishonest and greedy are the only ones to really get ahead. Then they spend their efforts protecting that loot from the very people they extracted it from.

Ironically, true free market capitalism flourishes on a small scale in those post collapse times. People specialize in useful skills that have low barriers to entry: chicken farmer, hot food vendor, handyman, seamstress or tailor, etc. Lots more people grow vegetables and trade their excess at the central market for things they need. It's like shoots of green emerging after a huge forest fire, both capitalism and the forest regenerate, and the forest, like the economy can be managed to be productive, or both can go up once again in a big conflagration that destroys everything.

[Odin2005]

121. Russia seems to be reverting to a kind of industrialized feudalism

[izquierdista]

126. Except now the peasants are educated

You can find a lot of PhD educated peasants in Russia now. If you meet people at bookshops or libraries, you can find them to be highly educated, knowledgeable about a wide range of topics, maybe an expert in some area of original research. And the next morning they will be selling beets and turnips from their garden in the marketplace to make ends meet.

[Odin2005]

149. That's interesting!

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Malthus would argue with you

just saying...

:hi:

And he was one of the CLASSICAL ECONOMISTS

[Terry in Austin]

168. Agree - collapse

Things can get only as complex as the energy and resource base will support.
Then things de-complexify, usually over a short period of time.

Capitalism as we know it could arguably be considered a form of governance, as it's pretty much corporate power that's actually running the show these days.

Collapse is likely to leave at least a partial vacuum in governance. If so, it is likely that something akin to feudalism will fill the vacuum, since feudalism could be considered the "default" form of government -- i.e., if you didn't make a point of having something else, then what you've got is feudalism.

[kctim]

10. They will follow

but, because of our Constitution and the emphasis it placed on individual rights and freedoms, it will take longer than it does others.

[patrick t. cakes]

12. will it be in a european

fashion? will we move into extreme fascism first, then a more socially democratic society? are we just a few generations behind?

[kctim]

38. European culture

is that of being dependent on the state, while US culture is that of being dependent on ourselves, so IMO, we are two, maybe three, generations behind them.
I believe this because of our Constitution, not because I am sure the people reject such govt intrusion. Our founders wrote the Constitution so as to prevent govt from transforming into a socialist styled govt and gave that power to the people. Busy day here, but I think it takes 2/3 majority of the states to overwrite them and the votes, reps and will are not quite there yet.
Because of this, it will be a gradual transition to become more like the Europeans. We will always be 'chasing' them, but it will speed up a ton once that 2/3 barrier falls.

[tavalon]

84. I really, really hope so

I'm not feeling that optimistic, but then again, you and I get to go through the shit but maybe the grandchildren or great grandchildren will have social democracy. That would be so much nicer for them.

[leftstreet]

13. The fall of capitalism won't harm the peon class

We will still know how to be teachers, plumbers, homemakers, dentists, students, janitors, engineers, gardeners, etc. We will still know how to run cash registers, argue legal cases, cook food, fix broken bones, and pour concrete walkways. And we can, as we always have, share that knowledge and those life skills with each other.

It's the teeny, tiny Ownership Class that must worry about what follows the collapse of capitalism, not the rest of us.

[inna]

48. +++

I love this message.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. Well, here in America Corporatism followed Capitalism...

Reagan worked hard to destroy every vestige of Capitalism in America, and the rest was taken out by Bush Jr.

We are not Capitalist. We are a Corporatist Economy that uses Consumerism to redistribute wealth from the poor and middle class to the Investor class.

Read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" after you finish Marx.

[patrick t. cakes]

16. interesting. without a doubt

one can see this. ill read smith

[defendandprotect]

25. Capitalism's core is exploitation and only controlled by REGULATION/New Deal ...

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime --

Remember that we had the NEW DEAL prior to corporatism . . . and/or inbetween

periods of Golden Age/Robber Baron corporatism depending on how you look at it!

And, that wealth was used to buy our people's government and elected officials --

and obviously political violence which has so damaged our nation over last 60 years and more --

where capitalists have warred on people's government with coups/assassinations.

[Ozymanithrax]

32. The creator of free market capitalism, Adam Smith...

wrote government regulation and monitoring into his ideas. He also originated the idea of a living wage. He particularly detested monopolies.

Corporatism, as practiced by the U.S. Church of Money, protects the right for corporations to grow to dominate markets, to create monopolies.

U.S. economy has not been Capitalist in a long time. However, they hide behind that name because it is packaged and sold along with baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet as the American ideal. To go back to classic capitalism, we would have to re-institute regulation. What we really have is Corporatism, right out of Mussolini's play book.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Those who pray at the Church of Smith

but have not read the word do not realize that Smith abhorred monopolies, since they were protected entities by the state. Nor do they realize that Smith was all for Living Wages and for limiting the right of capitalists (as a class mind you) to get together and fix prices and wages. He wrote specifically that those same capitalist should be heavily regulated.

David Ricardo, who refined Smith also spoke in better terms of a progressive taxation system, which Smith spoke off, but did not refine his ideas. Also Ricardo went into the idea that tariffs are good and that nations need to protect their borders from external competition in the world economy. Don't worry, the kids at the Wharton school of business don't learn this either... oh hail the great God, but don't dare to read the word... we are very catholic about it, which means the high priests tell us what we have to think about this, not what the holy books say. And I have not even gone into Malthus, or for that matter Marx, who are in line here.

[tavalon]

86. When the government colludes with corporations,

it's called fascism. A number of us want to believe that was averted by electing Obama. A growing number of us are being disabused of that notion.

[Greyhound]

17. Global devastation, at least as it is currently practiced. n/t

[patrick t. cakes]

18. thats the thing to me.

the current state of things seems so much bigger than marx, engles etc...
global/ humanity changing. it seems like something ugly looms unforeseen.

[Greyhound]

34. Beg to differ, but it looms clearly foreseen, and warned about since

the 19th century. All that has changed are the details and the scale.
:kick:

[patrick t. cakes]

36. agreed, it looms foreseen

but the looming unknowable details and scale are what
frighten me. the scale.

[tavalon]

88. It's hard not to be fearful because we can't see what's just over that hill

I would like to believe that all we have to fear is fear itself but FDR is long gone.

[gravity]

19. Capitalism is here to stay

Markets and corporations aren't going away. The only things that will change is the rules that govern them.

In the past, Communism occurs in developing countries where the worker conditions are extremely poor. In developed countries, workers' standard of living is more comfortable so there isn't any revolution.

The flaw in Marx's prediction is that he thought that the standard of living for workers would remain very low as Europe developed. In reality, the standard of living and labor conditions slowly improved over time.

[defendandprotect]

21. You're talking about "totalitarian" communism/socialism . . .

not the socialism practiced in America and Europe even now --

[gravity]

31. Both America and Europe have capitalistic economies

[defendandprotect]

44. . . . . European economies have more a mix of socialism . . .

8 week vacations, unions, national health care --

America's capitalism is more corporatism -- predatory capitalism ...

[gravity]

49. They still have corporations just like the US

The difference is that they have more government social services and regulations.

Most businesses there are profit driven, financed and owned by private individuals, with supply and demand determining prices.

[defendandprotect]

51. What you're saying is that the New Deal capitalism is just like the capitalism we have now ....

No --

Neither is European capitalism what we have here --

It may happen to them yet -- but up to now they've been ahead of us in

social programs -- for a long, long, long, long time --




And one more example of this is that America never reached more than 39% unionization . . .

and the right wing has taken us back over the past decades to where we now have only

about 8% unionization and they're strongly after the teachers' union right now!

[Odin2005]

123. That's not Socialism, thats State Capitalism and a Welfare State.

Socialism is when workers own the means of production.

[patrick t. cakes]

23. it seems there is a slow regression of that though

as though standards of living are getting worse. or at best they're a
facade, in this country anyway.

[blindpig]

41. Tell that to the Greeks...

What about our healthcare?

They are coming for our Social Security.

The bit of working class prosperity that occurred here in the 50's-60's was an artifact of the outcome of WWII. The superior social safety net of Western Europe is being dismantled as we speak, once the socialist societies to the east were gone there was no good reason to keep up the expensive facade.

Nope, the 'Old Man' was spot on.

We must kill Capitalism before it kills us.

[defendandprotect]

60. Agree . . . .

[tavalon]

91. But as the conditions deteriorate here in America,

do you think that, without an overtly authoritarian threat, we will just happily go along? We're not there yet, but the path downward is pretty easy to see and I'm doubting that Capitalism can survive a revolution. It never has before. Mind you, revolution, especially bloody revolution, usually leaves a vacuum into which some really awful stuff flows. I'm not an advocate for bloody revolution but I am having a hard time seeing Capitalism survive the unrest that is obviously coming.

[defendandprotect]

140. We should only think in terms of non-violent revolution . . .

Howard Zinn's videos are interesting in that --

Why our Revolution, indeed? Perhaps wasn't necessary --

Corporations' want to control government to control wealth and natural resources

of the nation -- they don't want to engage in business as we can see from the last

go around. The object is THEFT. And, taking nation backward so that there isn't

an informed public, or a well fed, nor healthy public to deal with vs their criminal

antics. Think "poor houses" and Dickens!! Child labor!!

Organizing labor is always the first step . . . isn't it?

Organizing in every way --

Notice that the elites are organized up down/around and thru and every other way --

and they strive to keep labor/public unorganized. That's one of the keys.

[patrick t. cakes]

144. thats weber's contention

organization.

[defendandprotect]

146. Who's "weber" . . .? Though I could google it . . .

would it be your "weber" ???



... but it should be obvious to everyone --

Bill Maher speaks about it, I've noticed -- from videos here --

[patrick t. cakes]

150. max weber

takes marx a step further and implies bureaucracy, hierarchy and organization as the modes to inequality in society.
organization of the elites.

[defendandprotect]

205. Yes, we are all controlled by hierarchies . . .

the destruction of individual and combined social power --

You've also noticed, I'm sure, that our colleges and universities have been

corporatized and militarized?

[patrick t. cakes]

226. without a doubt

[Odin2005]

122. Don't confuse the market and free enterprise with Capitalism.

Capitalism is about who OWNS the means of production, NOT how goods and services are distributed in society, A co-op-based market economy would be Socialist. The Market is a distribution mechanism, it can exist in many economic systems. In fact the more complex the economy the more important the market is, regardless of the economic system. In many early states the economy was simple enough that it was very easily run as a command economy. As an economy gets more complex the information needed for effective distribution of goods and services in a command economy increases exponentially.

[defendandprotect]

141. Agree . . . but would also suggest that often "complexity" is actually

corruption and crime --

The Wall Street expansion which began post the JFK coup is one example --

Overpopulation another --

BCCI, Savings & Loan theft and embezzlements -- bailouts $800 Billion or more?

And, later even more serious crimes began after overturning New Deal regulations --

Glass-Steagall --

Without overturning of New Deal regulations investment became "speculation" for the

buyer/gambling -- and where formerly companies were forced to invest much of their

profits in their own business, the profits for used for takeovers of other comanies

and dismantling them.

Capitalism isn't really about competition . . . it's about killing the competition.


I can cite one instance of a couple having lost 3/4 of their savings because they

couldn't reach their broker to sell stock in one of the early market upheavals.

Someone else's gain is usually someone else's loss --

Today's home foreclosures -- someone has profited from that --

This hasn't really been an economy so much as a stage setting for theft -- has it?

Wall Street Casino?




PS: Of course, the Drug War also fits in there somewhere . . .

Elites are certainly profiting -- make huge profits from selling drugs --

means using military -- corrupting government officials -- government agencies --

police enforcement -- but highly profitable. And, the widespread rumon/observation

is why should our elites/government permit some gangsters to make that money -- or

other elites who might use it to gain control over us? Aha....!!

[defendandprotect]

20. You can see true socialism at work in our country -- and in many European countries . . .

That is not "totalitarian" socialism practiced by Russia --

nor commented on by Orwell who said of both communism and capitalism, "A pox on both

their houses" --

This is democratic socialism . . . and that's how we should move forward --

Basically we need a total change in culture to end exploitation of nature --

Unfortunately, patriarchy is based on exploitation of nature, natural resources,

animal-life -- and even other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

Capitalism is part of patriarchy and organized patriarchy religion -- the Trinity of destruction!

[proteus_lives]

50. "patriarchy is based on exploitation of nature, natural resources"

Patriarchy. So if the world was run by women, it would vastly better?

[defendandprotect]

53. The world was vastly different pre patriarchal violence and the

overthrowing of female-centered societies --

Meanwhile, did women enslave Africans here in America?

Did females write this schizophrenic Constitutiton?

Did females dole out property to elites here?

How long was it in our history before females had the vote?

Did females pass our natural resources onto private interests?

Did females create a $700 billion -- or is it a one TRILLION dollar MIC budget?

How many female presidents have we had --??

When you answer some of those questions for yourself, perhaps you'll be able to

answer your own question.

Patriarchy is a war on nature and women --

Why would anyone defend it?

Unless they mistakenly think because they are male they are part of partriarchy?



:rofl:

[proteus_lives]

64. I wonder that what your world-view would like if you treated women like human beings.

:rofl:

News-flash friend, women are human beings! They are subject to the same flaws and follies that men are.

If you reversed gender dominance, the world wouldn't be that different.

[defendandprotect]

90. Patriarchy and violence are mirror images of one another . . .

Patriarchy is the REVERSAL -- and it was done with violence --

But, again, why would you defend patriarchy and its abuse of males as well?

Do you think you are part of patriarchy? Or don't you understand the

oppression of males, as well, under patriarchy?

[proteus_lives]

102. Who is defending patriarchy?

I'm finding fault which your unrealistic and vaguely insulting view of woman and what they are capable of.

Humanity and violence are mirror-images of each other.

Sexism is thinking one gender is lesser then another. It's also thinking one gender is somehow superior then other.

You're not doing women any favors when you idealize them.

[defendandprotect]

131. Defending or in denial . . . is there any difference?

Again, tell me a time in recent history when women have controlled society/populations?

Not for 50,000 years -- and those were times of peace!

Unfortunately, patriarchy and violence are mirror-images of one another --

300 years of physics run by males and what did they come up with? The atomic bomb!

Feminism is anti-domination of anyone by anyone else --

We have just the reverse of that under patriarchy -- or do you not think that patriarchy

is male-supremacy and domination?

You're not doing males any favor by idealizing patriarchy --

Again, patriarchy is a "bird with one wing" --

We need female leadership and female values in place --

And to end the patriarchal war on nature and women --

Let's deal with male-supremacy and eliminate it --

Let's end this one-all-male god nonsense --

Female-centered societies were based on reality, not domination --

End female-oppression and violence by patriarchy -- that's the beginning.







I'm finding fault which your unrealistic and vaguely insulting view of woman and what they are capable of.

Humanity and violence are mirror-images of each other.

Sexism is thinking one gender is lesser then another. It's also thinking one gender is somehow superior then other.

You're not doing women any favors when you idealize them.]

[tavalon]

97. We are all human beings, true enough,

but in the macrocosm, men and women act quite different and appear to have somewhat different brain structures and ways of dealing with the world. Women (in the macrocosm) are more socially cooperative, less combative, more likely to use consensus than men. There are so many other differences, it would take a small book to list them. But it's very important that you hear that I'm talking generalities here because I can give you thousands of examples of women who don't behave that way and thousands of examples of men who do.

[proteus_lives]

107. It depends on a lot of factors.

Biology and culture play their part.

But in my personal experience, what I've read and seen. Women and men aren't that far apart from each.

I hate when people idealize people, places, ideas, anything. It hurts rather then helps.

[tavalon]

108. I'm hardly idealizing here

Women have been studied too little and men, too much. There are actually differences. What those differences would mean in a large schema, I have no idea. But if you think I'm saying Margaret Thatcher behaved any differently from a man in her position, my answer would be a resounding no. But then, human systems are made up of much more than brain differences and gender tendencies. It's pretty easy to argue that woman have never found a way to rise to the top without using the patriarchal system already in place. That system is pretty darn pervasive.

[proteus_lives]

109. You're not, DP is.

I agree that women should be studied more.

"It's pretty easy to argue that woman have never found a way to rise to the top without using the patriarchal system already in place. That system is pretty darn pervasive."

There's the rub, who could say that women would create a better system? For example would a woman like Margaret Thatcher behave differently in that system?

[defendandprotect]

134. Women are the majority on the planet -- 52%-54% or more . . .

If patriarchy would stop killing females and abusing them we might actually

find out --

Females contribute 57% of DNA to offspring -- males 43% -- when mitochondria is

considered.

All life begins as female --

Nature is female-centered --

Does that mean female domination -- no.

Does that mean that we have patriarchal oppression of females -- yes.

More than 50,000 years ago peaceful, female-centered societies were overturned by

male violence.

Much knowledge was destroyed -- and organized patriarchal religion and a one-all-male god

was invented to cement patriarchy.

When you base your understanding of life only upon what you personally know, you are limiting

awareness.

[proteus_lives]

224. Your point?

I'm not seeing any points on how women are better then men and would run the world better.

[defendandprotect]

132. Nature puts her faith in females . . . not males . . .

The basis for all life is female --

You've never lived in anything but a culture constructured by patriarchy and its

underpinning . . . organized patriarchal religion and capitalism.

Women have been conducting a thousands of year long peaceful revolution against

their oppression under patriarchy.

Take everything you've ever heard about males/females -- including the Bible -- and

REVERSE it. Patriarchal propaganda reeks without our societies --

Adam gave life to Lilith and Eve?

The SIN in the Garden of Eden was eating an apple?

Or was that an animal?

The beginning of male violence -- ??

Patriarchy have turned the world upside down with violence and lies --

[proteus_lives]

225. So, basically you're a misandrist?

Or given your unrealistic view of women, a misogynist. You show traits of both.

[tavalon]

94. That's a distinct possibility

It's unlikely we'll ever know.

[proteus_lives]

103. In future, perhaps.

But look to history, you'll find plenty of examples of women and men behaving the same way if put in the same position.

[defendandprotect]

135. You're pointing to recent history . . . the world is 3.5 billions years old . . .

humans have been here for 375,000 years!

Do you understand how much knowledge/science has been destroyed by patriarchy - ?

By patriarchal violence --?

[proteus_lives]

104. Dupe.

[Quantess]

111. self delete

[jobycom]

22. Nothing will follow it automatically, but socialism will eventually come from it if given the chance

First, basic economic rules will always hold. Supply and demand will always set price, for instance, even if that price isn't a monetary unit and even if the participants aren't individuals. That's the part that doesn't change. It's likely that we don't understand all the rules, either, and that new rules will emerge as we move towards other economic systems.

All economic systems are just ways to emphasize the basic rules, and to combine them in certain ways. Some are better than others. Capitalism is a hell of a lot better than manorialism or feudalism, or a gift-pillage economy, and it's a step closer to what Marx envisioned. They all require an appropriate style of government. A gift-pillage economy requires a tribal government too weak to enforce monetary laws, for instance. Feudalism requires a land-based aristocracy and a weak central government. Capitalism requires a strong central government able to protect citizens and smaller businesses from larger business--take away that protection, and you devolve back into feudalism.

Socialism will emerge from capitalism eventually, assuming there are centralized governments strong enough to bring it about. Those who want to bring down our government or bring down capitalism don't understand the issue. If you bring it down, you lose your momentum, and you'll never move to socialism. Capitalism's failure is the worst thing that can happen if you want a socialist economy. Capitalism has to transform, not collapse.

My own opinion is that socialism will only work when capitalism has made the world rich enough that greed is a luxury instead of a means of survival. When hunger is rare, when people have more than they need and even know that, when they begin to realize that the continued pursuit of wealth and riches will not make them happier, but will lead them away from the true meaning of their lives, and at the same time they realize that continued growth means continued destruction of what's left of the world, then socialism will begin to emerge. Then people will pull back, and sacrifice more gain they don't need to take care of others so that the environment can be spared. I think it will all work together to bring about change.

And I don't think it's hopelessly far off. I don't think it's something our children will live under, but I think it's just over the horizon. Events will make it seem more urgent, and people will become more ready for it.

But I also believe there are two ways to prevent it from happening. One is by pushing it before it is ready. I'm not talking about issues like health care, I'm talking about trying to completely overhaul the government and force a government like Russia's or China's. That just gave too much power to too few people, and that type of power is never given up. A dictatorship of the proletariat really has to come from the proletariat, and our proletariat is not ready yet. The other way is to kill capitalism. Both sides keep trying to destroy it--the conservatives with their supply-sided mentality, and the liberals with their protectionist mentality. It won't happen if we are filthy rich and Mexico or Burma or wherever is still filthy poor. We have to get closer to a state of equality, or the capitalism will always be too predatory to step aside.

Probably makes no sense. :( I'm not a political philosopher, just a blowhard internet debater. :)

[patrick t. cakes]

37. thanks for the great post.....

"Capitalism's failure is the worst thing that can happen if you want a socialist economy. Capitalism has to transform, not collapse."

as stated else where on this thread, it seems we've indeed transformed, namely into a corporatist society; is this a regression into a somewhat feudal social structure, or a mutated hybrid of capitalism?

[jobycom]

42. Oh, it's definitely a regression towards feudalism.

Long term I think we'll move forward again. I hope. :( The mark of feudalism is when private ownership begins taking over public duties, and that's definitely what's happening here.

[defendandprotect]

56. hmmm......

Re your 1st paragraph --

We've just come thru a period which shows us that exploitation of the markets --

speculation -- Wall Street/Casino like gambling -- required taxpayer bailouts!

You must also be aware of Enron's criminal behavior in California, especially where

they bankrupted pensions and the state -- not to mention citizens!

Additionally, look at interest rates -- the FED has been setting those! Not even

Congress -- and it should be Congress' responsibility to do so!

Economic decisions are POLITICAL -- and those who make those decisions should be our

elected representatives. . . not a private bank!


Your second paragraph --

Capitalism is the successor to Feudalism ...

Vatican invented capitalism when Feudalism was no longer sufficient to run their Papal States.

As Orwell said of both capitalism and communism . . . "a pox on both their houses!"

Capitalism requires a strong central government able to protect citizens and smaller businesses from larger business--take away that protection, and you devolve back into feudalism.

With the overturning of the New Deal and the bribing of our elected officials, we no longer

have a strong central government, EXCEPT to protect monopoly business -- we have devolved into

corporate fascism. Also see: "War is a Racket!" by Brig. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler which

explains the use of our army's to protect capitalism.


Socialism will emerge from capitalism eventually, assuming there are centralized governments strong enough to bring it about. Those who want to bring down our government or bring down capitalism don't understand the issue. If you bring it down, you lose your momentum, and you'll never move to socialism. Capitalism's failure is the worst thing that can happen if you want a socialist economy. Capitalism has to transform, not collapse.

Socialism was evolving from capitalism -- FDR's New Deal also included National Health Care and

other programs -- however, the right wing political violence over the last 60 years has destroyed

what we had and any future for socialism here depends upon our overturning the right wing

violence. That's not to suggest that patriarchy/capitalism has not always been violent -- it has.

It is merely to point to the very out-in-the-open right wing violence we have suffered over the

last decades.


My own opinion is that socialism will only work when capitalism has made the world rich enough that greed is a luxury instead of a means of survival. When hunger is rare, when people have more than they need and even know that, when they begin to realize that the continued pursuit of wealth and riches will not make them happier, but will lead them away from the true meaning of their lives, and at the same time they realize that continued growth means continued destruction of what's left of the world, then socialism will begin to emerge. Then people will pull back, and sacrifice more gain they don't need to take care of others so that the environment can be spared. I think it will all work together to bring about change.

The purpose of capitalism is NOT to make the masses rich -- nor to feed them.

Capitalism is elitism -- capitalism is a system intended to move the wealth and natural resources

of a nation from the many to the few.

We are also reaching 7+ billion and more to come so that would be a largely unrealistic goal

even if someone was in favor of it!

You must also be aware of Global Warming and the damage already done to our planet --

our oceans, soil, rivers, streams, drinking water -- our air -- and the HEATING of the environment

which is Global Warming and which will bring us increasing chaotic weather conditions.

There is a 50 year delay in Global Warming so the effects we are feeling right now only reflect

the damage we have done up to 1960!

Nothing wrong with your ideals, hopes and dreams -- only problem is they have nothing to do with

elite rule.













:)

[jobycom]

66. You have a biased opinion of capitalism based on your interpretation of the word.

Stepping back from that, it's simply a way to organize an economy. The abuses are because of bad government and societal decisions. Let any system run rampant, and it will produce tremendous inequities.

You're flat wrong to say that capitalism's purpose is to move wealth from the poor to the elite. The basis of capitalism is that wealth redistributes constantly in both directions, instead of locking it in place the way most other systems have done. The excesses you complain of are the opposite of capitalism--they are the vestiges of feudalism reemerging because government has not done its best to protect capitalism. They are the result of private industry losing the government restrictions and functioning as feudal entities. The problem isn't capitalism, it is that those in control don't understand capitalism, and mistakenly label their free market and supply-sided nonsense as capitalism. They aren't capitalism. Capitalism requires a strong governmental regulation. When you lose that regulation, you have feudalism.

Even the most slight knowledge of history will prove that capitalism has done a greater job of moving wealth from the elite to the masses than any other system. Feudalism locks the wealth in the hands of hereditary property owners who owe nothing to the people beneath, who cannot gain land or wealth and therefore live with the crumbs the elite decide to leave them. Until capitalism began to emerge, no economic system gave as much control of the production of labor to the laborer.

The next step needs to make the system better, but don't look at the gross abuses within the system as the totality of the system. Put into context, capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty and created a higher standard of life for more people than any other system in history, and the biggest drawback to it is that it does not reach into all corners of the world. That needs to be our goal as progressives--spread capitalism by squashing those who abuse it. Regulate the playing field to stop the Enrons and the BPs from their excesses. End feudalism, not capitalism.

[defendandprotect]

77. Who isn't biased against capitalism . . . unless they're asleep . . . ???

Seashells are a way to organize an economy --

And Bretton Woods Accords is a way to organize an economy --

Capitalism is a system of organized crime -- and if you've been around the last two

years here in America, I would presume you would have observed that as we have bailed

our corrupt/criminal capitalism . . . again!!


Stepping back from that, it's simply a way to organize an economy. The abuses are because of bad government and societal decisions. Let any system run rampant, and it will produce tremendous inequities.

Wake up! Corporations have bought control of our government -- control of our agencies!

We don't have "bad" government . . . we have coporate government!

Wow!!



You're flat wrong to say that capitalism's purpose is to move wealth from the poor to the elite. The basis of capitalism is that wealth redistributes constantly in both directions, instead of locking it in place the way most other systems have done. The excesses you complain of are the opposite of capitalism--they are the vestiges of feudalism reemerging because government has not done its best to protect capitalism. They are the result of private industry losing the government restrictions and functioning as feudal entities. The problem isn't capitalism, it is that those in control don't understand capitalism, and mistakenly label their free market and supply-sided nonsense as capitalism. They aren't capitalism. Capitalism requires a strong governmental regulation. When you lose that regulation, you have feudalism.

Did you ever play a game of Monopoly? That's capitalism.

Did they possibly tell you in school that capitalism and democracy are snynomous?

They were lying -- capitalism is the opposite of democracy.

Capitalism is removing the middle class everywhere because they no longer need a middle class

as a show case vs USSR communism.

Private industry didn't "LOSE" government restrictions . . . they worked to overturn the

NEW DEAL regulations!! Glass-Steagall and all of the laws put in place to control predatory

capitalism. Have you no knowledge of FDR/New Deal history?

And, No . . . when New Deal regulations are overturned by corporate influence and money . . .

i.e., see latest Supreme Court Case!! -- then what you have in unregulated capitalism is

organized crime! That's what FDR saw . . . and that's what we have again.



Even the most slight knowledge of history will prove that capitalism has done a greater job of moving wealth from the elite to the masses than any other system. Feudalism locks the wealth in the hands of hereditary property owners who owe nothing to the people beneath, who cannot gain land or wealth and therefore live with the crumbs the elite decide to leave them. Until capitalism began to emerge, no economic system gave as much control of the production of labor to the laborer.

Again, I suggest you read something of FDR and New Deal -- and something of the Reagan/Bush history

in overturning it for corporate $$.

Nor is capitalism about competitition . . . it's about killing the competition.

And MONOPOLY as you are seeing it now in "too big to fail companies" is more proof of that!

Again, the capitalism you are celebrating is regulated capitalism -- the New Deal capitalism --

which created the middle class. That's over.

Wake up!

[patrick t. cakes]

106. i like to read more about this if possible...

"Capitalism is removing the middle class everywhere because they no longer need a middle class

as a show case vs USSR communism."

link??

[defendandprotect]

138. That's the conclusion of some ....

Some who study society/economics have draw from the Cold War/Wall falling events --

and the elite attack on middle class everywhere --

Have you not noticed that attack?

That redistribution of wealth from the many to the few as New Deal regulations were

overturned?

As the Berlin Wall fell?

That's a theory . . . you can probably find it somewhere on the internet --

you can probably find it at your library.

The alleged conflict of Communism vs Capitalism had to do with which benefited

societies more. A middle class was emblematic of capitalism's success.

But little of what I say and offer is based on a "LINK" . . .

Here are two other theories worth knowing and thinking about . . .

"You can only really own what you can carry on your back" --

and --

Same with intelligence/knowledge --

You only know what you can remember -- what you can carrying in your own head --



:)



PS: I'd just also note, however, that we're still in the same gene pool which gave

us genocide vs Native Americans . . . Slavery, etal --

That's patriarchy and its violence -- a warring influence since it arose.

And the only way that the right can hold onto its control, its ability to exploit is

thru violence. Another major turning point where right wing violence came to the fore

was the JFK assassination which was indeed a coup on our "people's" government.

That was a major turning point for our nation and kicked off a long streak of right wing

political violence.

[tavalon]

99. I've been an anti-Capitalist for some time

But your posts are making me see that it isn't the Capitalism per se, that I abhor, it's the Capitalism run amok. There are plenty of people who say no one ever changes their mind in internet discussions. I have in the past and I feel a bit of a shift occurring right now. You and a few other posters on this thread have given me much to think about.

[defendandprotect]

220. Capitalism "runs amok" when it is unregulated . . . .

That's why they say that FDR saved capitalism from itself --

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime ---

i.e., "capitalism running amok" --


and from any street corner you can see that without crime, it's unprofitable --

i.e., four corners . . . four gas stations. All the same prices, generally, you might

note. Coincidentally? No . . . if they didn't collude on prices they would each have

to undercut the other's prices to survive. The original 7 sisters, in fact!

Capitalism isn't about competitition -- it's about killing the competition.

That's how we get monopolies.


The core of capitalism is exploitation of nature and humans --

Don't see anyone who recognizes that going back to supporting it --

There was a time when our schools also taught the lie that "Democracy and capitalism were

synonymous" -- !!

Wow!

What we need is economic democracy -- without that there is no democracy.



:)

[tavalon]

98. I beg to differ with your last sentence

That was something amazing. You just brought a dozen of my disparate thoughts together in an amazing post. It's posts like that that keep me here, and keep my brain fed. That made so much sense, I'm still reeling. I don't expect you to have an answer to this but do you have any ideas about how we begin to travel toward that state of equality?

[Taverner]

24. Capitalism can devolve into feudalism, or it can evolve into Socialism

The choice is ours

[patrick t. cakes]

28. which way are we going?

it feels as though we are devolving

[Taverner]

30. That's my fear too...

[Hekate]

115. During Bush the Lesser's reign I started to see neo-feudalism in our future, unless we...

... seriously get a grip as a society. My favorite visual image of where the Bush years were going: the gated community, in all its moated splendor.

Hekate

[randr]

27. Sort of like Monopoly

Someone ends up with all the money and the game ends.

[defendandprotect]

58. Right . . . Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system . . .

it's intended to move a nation's wealth and natural resources from the many

to the few --

and it succeeds at doing just that all over the world!!

[patrick t. cakes]

63. since capitalism is unsustainable, collapse into corporate/post corp. feudalism

is inevitable, how does our government shift with this process?

[defendandprotect]

69. Our government is under control of corporations . . .

all of our agencies are perverted by corporate control --

This has been going on for decades --

That's the purpose of corporations owning both parties . . . DLC-corporate wing of

Democratic Party!

The question is what will the people do --

On the other hand, obviously nature has been made unstable by capitalism's exploitation --

Patriarchy/Organized patriarchal religion/capitalism . . . all one package . . .

and represent suicidal concepts. A Trinity of suicidal insanity!!

Patriarchy . . . "the bird with one wing" --




since capitalism is unsustainable, collapse into corporate/post corp. feudalism
is inevitable, how does our government shift with this process?

[patrick t. cakes]

71. we evolve into a modern hyper fascism?

when does the state actually freely admit this and not hide behind
pretty words such as, democracy, constitution etc etc...

really all i see is ugly things coming very soon.

[defendandprotect]

75. Corporatism is fascism . . . Nader has been talking about that for decades . . .

We're experiencing predatory capitalism . . . is that not "hyper fascism" ???

WE are the "state" . . . especially when our elected officials are pre-BRIBED

and pre-OWNED . . .

It is up to us now as to what to do ---

Will we wait until all the Middle Class is gone --

Until we are hungry and homeless?

Until all our children are unemployed?

Meanwhile, what most of us seem to have been trying to do is get more liberals/

progressive elected -- targeting conservatives in both parties.

IMO -- and as others have pointed out -- probably too slow for the danger we're in

right now!

Again -- nature will also have her say in this battle --

Patriarchy's war has always been on nature and women --

[tavalon]

101. It is up to us now as to what to do

And therein lies the problem. The only thing I share with the teabaggers is fear and a feeling of impotence. I know what I don't want to happen. I don't know what I do want to happen. Do you?

[defendandprotect]

147. Yes, I want to overturn corporate fascism . . . which has used its wealth to seize our

government and bribe our elected officials --

There are a number of ways to bankrupt corporations --

and there is the age old question of the violent personalities among us which

the elites certainly are -- at least in their thinking and their ability to pay

hired guns and Mafia personalities to do their dirty work -- and how to control them.

Since time began, those who are willing to be violent to get their way have been the

problem. Few among us, but they can teach violence quite easily to others.


We obviously need to break what the SC has just cemented in place -- corporate

wealth controlling elections!

[tavalon]

100. Our government already has

How many times have you heard here that we're frustrated because our government doesn't seem to be listening to us. They aren't. They are in collusion with corporations and have even granted them super - human status via the Supreme court just a few months ago.

[defendandprotect]

148. Exactly . . . !!

[conspirator]

33. A mad max wasteland n/t

[Rex]

39. Corporatism follows capitalism followed then by an Oligarchy.

Then a Cartel, then if there are any warm bodies left, dual ownership of a nation or state.

[Dr Morbius]

142. Yes. Oligarchy follows capitalism.

Government by those that owns everything, that's oligarchy. We're quite close to it, methinks.

[branders seine]

45. a virtually dead planet,

starting over down the long road to intelligent life.

[Motown_Johnny]

46. the only thing that comes after Capitalism is a purer form of Capitalism

Although it is my personal belief that a hybrid system of Capitalism with Socialism (as a catch net) is the higher form of economic system.

[inna]

47. wow. really interesting topic that got unrec'd into oblivion (and probably flamed, too).

Too bad.

[patrick t. cakes]

54. yeah, i noticed that too.

funny thing to happen on DU.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Soylent green twinkies. n/t

[laughingliberal]

55. Cannibalism? nt

[Canuckistanian]

57. Feudalism

It's a cycle. Our best hope is a re-emergence of the bubonic plague.

[defendandprotect]

59. K&R --

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. I am going to start by affirming something your prof

`might or might not agree with. After all this is a very internal food fight. Marx is a capitalist. WHAT? Yep, he is. His whole argument is about the three chapters on Labor and Wages in the Wealth of Nations. Both Smith and Marx agree that labor add value to the finished goods. So their argument is how to best distribute that wealth to labor, aka the working man.

As to what follows... First the theory says that Capitalism is followed by socialism, which is the last stage of the dialectic. Of course the dialectic did not foresee the rise of modern day fascism (yes the Third Way is that) or peak oil. So what follows depends on what we, as a people do. Personally this form of consumerism... no, it is not Capitalism, not as Classical Economists spoke off, but something else closer to... mercantilism. The exact same system that MR. Smith was critical in the Wealth of Nations.

Oh and while we are at it, let me say it right now... as I look forwards to the end of Empire, what I see is not nice. But Americans better wake up to the massive propaganda that we are subjected to REGULARLY. FREE TRADE, CAPITALISM, my dying ass.

[patrick t. cakes]

67. marx is a capitalist...

very interesting, i see this, i need to read smiths "wealth of nations" seems his message has been long ago co-opted.

So what follows depends on what we, as a people do. Personally this form of consumerism... no, it is not Capitalism, not as Classical Economists spoke off, but something else closer to... mercantilism. The exact same system that MR. Smith was critical in the Wealth of Nations

i took a course on The Republic of Venice last semester and the correlation between our present economic/political system and the mercantilism/ "republic" of the Venetian Empire are very similar.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Look at Spain circa oh 18th century

[patrick t. cakes]

70. i see this system is nothing new...

only new players. is it merely cyclical?

whats your estimate as far as its inevitable collapse? if there is one
how does that play out on the global stage, if it happens at all.

[defendandprotect]

73. FDR rescued capitalism by regulating it ... corporations responded by

buying government and elected officials and overturning regulations --

Result: WE JUST BAILED THEM OUT AGAIN WITH TAXPAYER MONEY!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Empires and the fall and collapse of them

is rather cyclical. I suggest looking at Spain since the US has a lot in common with Spain at this stage, creating a huge economic debt, to the state, all for one commodity, which solves all. For Spain this was gold (and a mercantilistic economy where the colonies were told you cannot build finished goods, or industrialize) and you shall import from us our finished goods.

But both have heavy monopolies, protected by the state that control the flow of goods and services. As to collapse... when it happens it will be sudden, like all Empires. And I hope, perhaps not, the country does not go down the path of civil war. As to when this will come. We are close. We are past peak oil, and we are playing games at the country that is famous for burying Empires since oh... Alexander the Great. What comes next will not be capitalism or socialism. Both are ideal systems... I quite frankly, in my bad days expect a new Dark Age. (Yes 500 CE to about 1500 CE)

[defendandprotect]

79. Nature will have a hand in the collapse . . . been a long time coming . . .

We can look at any of the nations exploited and forced into dumping domestic programs

and enslaved in debt!!

Except Israel which we finance -- both their warmongering and warmaking!!

How many nations have been pushed into this debt and this remedy?

Since the power of elite/capitalists to destroy and exploit seems limitless, I tend to

agree with you on an unhappy ending. Nature is ALL --

We have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill --

there is no financial remedy or repair for the damage being done to nature in the Gulf.

Nor ExxonValdez as we continue to witness.

The reality is that patriarchy/organized patriarchal religion/capitalism are all one --

an unholy Trinity of exploitation -- suicidal concepts of "Manifest Destiny" and

"Man's Dominion Over Nature" -- !!

We are about to lose humanity and our ability to survive on this planet -- that is the

Dark Age to come.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Unless Yellostone goes up

or we get an asteroid nature will not have a direct role either way. Those two are extinction level events by the way.

I am sure you knew that, or perhaps not... most likely not.

[defendandprotect]

137. You're now denying that Nature is in control of our planet . . . universe?

Or maybe you're just denying Global Warming?

Maybe you're in denial that humans are part of Nature?

Wow!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. No I am not denying any of that

and am aware of Diamond's ideas and theories, as well as Malthus. But Nature is not in charge... what we are doing is a nasty science experiment CHANGING the natural order. Get this though, we are not gnatts and Gaia is not going to get rid of us like a dog gets rid of fleas.

Now humans will become extinct, like empires go away, but to say that nature is in charge is to give nature a personality. That is a step into the kind of magical thinking I am not going to take. You are welcome to magical thinking though.

[defendandprotect]

145. If you're not denying it, then Nature is in charge . . .

Who runs your body's systems . . . you? Or nature?

You don't suggest what "Diamond's" or "Malthus'" concepts may be or which of them you embrace.

We are not doing "science" -- patriarchy has been exploiting nature since it took control . . .

and it is warring on all of nature and women --

Patriarchy is destruction -- not science.

Yes, the stupidity and ignorance and suicidal thinking behind patriarchy has changed some of

our natural systems -- El Nino/La Nina, for two examples -- they were at one time once in every

1,000 or 2,000 year systems. They are now prime examples of Global Warming.


"Gnats and fleas" . . . what a poor analogy! Gnats and fleas are not capable of altering a dog,

but patriarchy has genetically changed just about every animal on the planet.

When the animal is destroyed -- as we are destroying our own planet -- the "gnats/fleas" are

forced to move on. Where are you going?


but to say that nature is in charge is to give nature a personality. That is a step into the kind of magical thinking I am not going to take. You are welcome to magical thinking though.

You may have missed it but universal reference to Nature is "HER" . . . same with homeland.

Does that give each too much of a "personality" for you?

Ah, yes -- the world engaged in "magical thinking" -- Wow!


:evilgrin:


When we increase the planet's temperature -- and here in NJ we're averaging 25 degrees above

normal every day -- and 2010 is now the latest hottest year ever -- we melt glaciers and

shift earth masses. No one knows if the planet will keep turning or not. No one can predict

how the compounding of Global Warming will play out -- especially given little capitalistic

crimes like the Gulf spill added to our already polluted oceans and overburdened planet.








No I am not denying any of that
and am aware of Diamond's ideas and theories, as well as Malthus. But Nature is not in charge... what we are doing is a nasty science experiment CHANGING the natural order. Get this though, we are not gnatts and Gaia is not going to get rid of us like a dog gets rid of fleas.

Now humans will become extinct, like empires go away, but to say that nature is in charge is to give nature a personality. That is a step into the kind of magical thinking I am not going to take. You are welcome to magical thinking though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. I take science over any woo magical thinking

you are welcome to yours.

By the way I understand Diamond since I have read him. I understand Malthus SINCE I HAVE READ HIM, and why Erlich has spoken of a population bomb. Alas they relied on DATA... and actually we have moved AWAY from the Watchmaker concept of Malthus's day.

You are welcome to it though.

I guess Gaia will just shake herself silly and we will fall, as she starts going round and round and round faster...

[defendandprotect]

156. Again, you're resorting to ridicule and nonsense rather than debate ...

From what I have seen of Diamond, I wouldn't bother reading him -- racist --

Evidently, everyone but they have relied on DATA . . . except much of Diamond's "data"

is false.

Most of us are hoping that we can defeat suicidal thinking by patriarchy/capitalism

while we may still have opportunities to address Global Warming.

bye --

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. I guess anybody who does not

meet your standards is racists and pushes the patriarchy. Gee Diamond used data to speak of the collapse of civilizations, alas he did not push this patriarchy stuff, nor magical thinking.

And if you are going to put me on ignore, put me on ignore.

[tavalon]

Those of us who use the term Gaia

are not necessarily imbuing her with a personality but we are acknowledging that she is an extremely complex living system rather than a dead rock upon with life seeded itself. A system so entwined and complex that man will likely not ever figure it out but that hasn't stopped us from mucking with her system with little regard for the checks and balances. We may or may not end up as casualties for our hubris. I'm fairly sure that this living planet has and will continue to adjust to global warming, the question for humans is whether humans can adjust to the earth's adjustments. And if the complex living system that is our home has something akin to a personality (I highly doubt it) it doesn't care one bit about who lives and who dies any more than you or I have an awareness or a care about a red or white blood cell that lives or dies within our own complex system.

I think those of us who believe that Gaia will dump us have a bit of an authoritarian streak and believe that since we've shown such disregard for her, she should show us the same disregard. But, I suspect it doesn't really work that way. Gaia will make her adjustments as she needs to remain a living entity and some species won't survive the adjustments and some will. Same as it ever was.

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. The concept as you are using it

actually has a place in science. That is not how DP is using it. She\he is using it in a more magical way of thinking.

Reality, and this takes us to a whole different discussion, is that our actions have triggered the 6th grand extinction, and that we may very well be on our way out, with every other high level organism on the planet. Alas that has nothing to do with the economic system, and perhaps more to do with the religious system of the West.

(Takes me back to quite a few discussions on the history of environmentalism in college and a streak in Fundie Christianity... and one particular passage in Genesis that some folks take literally)

[tavalon]

165. I don't want to take the conversation too far off the path,

but you and I both have medical backgrounds. From what I can see, medical science persists in using reductionist theory, hence many of the specialists, while necessary to such a complex system as the human body, tend to ignore the impact of one part of the body on the rest of the body. I see that same sort of "science" being used globally. It concerns me that we believe we know so much more than we actually do because we tend to do things that, in retrospect, wreak havoc on the entire system, whether we're talking about a human body or Earth. I just don't think we have nearly enough knowledge to be so damn cocky.

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. Why I made that reference

to that particular streak of Fundy thinking, that dominated colonialism as well...

And in a way it still dominates quite a bit of RW thinking... as well as why the Right denies things like global warming...

As to this mass extinction event, we might have triggered it because of the abuse of the system, and what we do not understand. I hope that biologists who've gone there, are wrong in the short term but if they are not... 200 years I guess on the outside. These are the days I am glad I don't have kids to go through that.

[patrick t. cakes]

82. i will read up on spain,

i took a glance at mercantilism on wiki,
there's a few sentences concerning its practice in england, beginning around the Elizabethan age.

what are your thoughts there, do you see
an american collapse something akin to the collapse of the british empire?
perhaps america could rebound into something post collapse. or will it not
have the luxury of a "U.S.A. cousin" to latch on to like post empire britain?

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. USSR is a closer model

and as you may remember, the USSR did break up. That said, a generation later Russia is doing pretty well.

[defendandprotect]

72. This I agree with: "So what follows depends on what we, as a people do"--

What we have to realize is that had there never been capitalism/bus-i-ness and

industrial revolution that we would have thrived, only differently. Probably with

much less population which creates its own problems.

We'd be ahead -- both financially and enriched with our own time on our hands --

and as far as nature/planet and animal-life are concerned.

That's been studied, but common sense suggests the conclusion is accurate.

Capitalism is based on exploitation of nature --

and since you're talking about Marx, I'll repeat this old Russian joke . . .


"Q: What's the difference between Capitalism and Communism?

A: Well, under Capitalism, man exploits man --

and under Communism, it is just the reverse -- !!"


We also have to recognize that patriarchy/organized patriarchal religion/capitalism

are all one system -- introduced with violence and kept in place with violence.









:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Ah those who are very catholic about the economy

and allow the high priests to tell them what to think. I suggest you read the great books, start with the Wealth of Nations, perhaps his book on morality will be more to your liking. Then move to Ricardo and Malthus, perhaps some Mill, and end you diet with the last of the Classic Era Economists, Karl Marx.

OR perhaps not, and be stuck where you are. Repeating what the High Priests tell you to think. And I mean it. Heavy propaganda has muddled all our minds... but Classic Economics has little do do with Neo Classic and the reversals of meaning. And spare me the patriarchy crap by the way.

[defendandprotect]

87. Let me suggest that you unmuddle your mind with a game of MONOPOLY . . .

that's capitalism -- pure and simple.

And your idea that anyone has worked out anything for me -- leave alone

"high priests" ... or did you actually mean "Catholic priests"? ... is a cross

between your sense of superiority and arrogant presumption.

Yes, I do a great deal of reading -- always have -- and always will.

But I also have common sense.

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system intended to move the wealth

and natural resources of any nation from the many to the few.

Why wouldn't that be clear to you?

FDR saved capitalism from itself by regulating it --

corporations responded by using their wealth to buy government and elected officials --

and thereby overturn the regulations. Needless to say, also now controlling not only

our government, but Congress and all of our government agencies, reversing their goals.



And spare me the patriarchy crap by the way.

And why is it that you need to ignore patriarchy?

Or are you in denial of it?

Or . . do you think you are part of patriarchy?




:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. No it is not

you are repeating the talking points. And I am going to say this, YOU HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOKS YOU CLAIM TO KNOW.

Good news, you are like 99% of Americans in that sense.

[defendandprotect]

136. Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system is a talking point???

"Unregulated capitalism is merely orgnaized crime" is a talking point?

Where?


And I am going to say this, YOU HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOKS YOU CLAIM TO KNOW.

You seem to be getting a little emotional if not flustered, nadin --

Reread my post . . . I have NOT claimed to have read any books you mentioned --

and I have mentioned no titles of books.

But for 25 years I've been reading hundreds of books of non-fition every year --

and what I found was evidence to support my own thoughts, feelings and ideals.

Thinking original to me -- btw.

bye --

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. SO you do pray at the church of free trade

but have never read the books of the church.

Here is a hint, you are repeating the talking points the RIGHT likes to push. We are NOT a capitalist country, have not been since at least Reagan if not earlier.

Here are some things that Smith, you know the GUY WHO ACTUALLY DEVELOPED THE SYSTEM wrote.

Monopolies have to be broken down to ensure competition. Where the fuck is king of the hill there?

Governments should encourage SMALL businesses, what we might call MAIN STREET and protect HOME INDUSTRIES from foreign competitors.

WAGE EARNERS you know workers, should have at the very least a MINIMUM WAGE, he actually argues for a LIVING WAGE.


So perhaps you should add to your list of NON FICTION BOOKS The Wealth of Nations. Hell you can even DOWNLOAD IT for FREE from Google books.

http://books.google.com/books?q=the+wealth+of+nations&oq=the+wealth+

Now go on... do something for yourself and START at the beginning. Perhaps you'll find out WHY THE FUCK WE ARE NOT A CAPITALIST COUNTRY.

As to getting emotional, far from it. You just push crap but cannot take the concept that perhaps YOU MIGHT BE WRONG and might be able to learn something. Not that I expect it either.

[defendandprotect]

157. The Vatican invented capitalism . . .

when Feudalism was no longer sufficient to run its Papal States --

Patriarchy/Organized patriarchal religion/Capitalism are all one unholy Trinity!


In fact, nadin ... I'm a recovering Catholic . . . an atheist --


Also note, that as free thinkers many of us don't need to read a book by someone else

to see what is obvious -- i.e., unions, small business, minimum wage . . .

The New Deal is quite a "book" in itself -- if you've ever bothered learning about it!


And, I'd suggest, nadin, that when capitalists STOP calling themselves that, we'll oblige

and call them whatever their new label may be!! I'm sure we'll be calling BP something

new shortly, as well!!



Monopolies have to be broken down to ensure competition.

Where the fuck is king of the hill there?

Have monopolies been broken down, nadin? Or did we just bail out "too big to fail" corporations?

Monopoly = one owner at some point --


As to getting emotional, far from it. You just push crap but cannot take the concept that perhaps YOU MIGHT BE WRONG and might be able to learn something. Not that I expect it either.

I'm willing to be wrong -- debate is essential to discovery.

Where is your debate, nadin?

What I see is constant reversal to attempts at ridicule and unlikely claims to superiority.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. The vatican invented WHAT?????

No wonder, you got your facts wrong. Mercantilism, you could make a weak case as the Vatican was involved in SOME of the developments of this but Capitalism took form in the 18th and 19th century, with the first of the Classical Economists being Adam Smith and the Wealth... We are not even speaking the same language, nor could we be speaking the same language.

You are engaging in quite a bit of revisionist history, and I am sorry but I will keep challenging the crap you try to pass. As to too big to fail not being capitalism, no it is not... and Adam Smith, you know the guy who first came up with the ideas that we call Classical Economics would be the first one to tell you that this is NOT capitalism. He'd also be able to tell you why this is CLOSER to what he was critical off, that is MERCANTILISM.

I know you will say that I am making fun of you... so be it, put me on Ignore, I will continue to challenge these ideas of yours... since they are not only off, but way off.

You do have some nuggets that are interesting, but you'd be better off if you actually bothered to learn what actually happened in a time line. Inventing history is not a good thing. It also helps to be able to critique what we have these days... and if you called it fascism.... no issue from me, it has many things in common, putting women down, sure,one of the 14 markers of fascism... go ahead and call it consumerism... absolutely... but go around and not even know the most basic of history... now I take issue.

So the Vatican did not invent capitalism, though it did have some hand in the development of Mercantilism... and the very early banking system, which is not the same as capitalism. GOT IT? DO you need a basic book in economic development?

Now make that bye for real and put me on ignore, please.

[defendandprotect]

178. "Adam Smith" . . . which one . . . PBS's or the real one . . . ?

Nonetheless, you're still wrong --

you could make a weak case as the Vatican was involved in SOME of the developments

but, there you are correct . . . Vatican found Feudalism insufficent and developed capitalism

to run their Papal States.

Re this . . .

and I am sorry but I will keep challenging the crap you try to pass. As to too big to fail not being capitalism, no it is not...

Of course, if you reread what you are saying here, it doesn't sound like you know whether

"too big to fail" is or isn't capitalism!

Here's your original comment and my reply --

Monopolies have to be broken down to ensure competition.

Where the fuck is king of the hill there?

Have monopolies been broken down, nadin? Or did we just bail out "too big to fail" corporations?

Monopoly = one owner at some point --

As you can see, I hope, this time around, my comment re "too big to fail" was connected specifically

to "monopolies" and "bail outs" --

Monopoly, of course, is the end game of capitalism . . . killing the competition --

and "bail outs" are what we do when capitalism "fails" once again in its exploitive, speculative,

predatory, criminal activities -- and crashes.


Keep challenging, nadin -- that would be novel if you actually say something!

You are correct, however, that we do have corporatism which is fascism . . .

but corporations are part of our capitalistic system. And, of course, Nader has

been reporting that for decades!

Unfortunately -- I don't put anyone on "ignore" unless they are totally disingenuous.

You can put me on "ignore," of course --

Whatever --

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. You have no clue who Adam Smith was?

You have no grounds to talk about ANY OF THIS. NO GROUNDS WHATSOEVER. You are proud in your ignorance of both history and chiefly in this case the history of political economy. If you do not know what those two words mean, use the WIKI or an encyclopedia for a starting point. Oh wait, those are full of patriarchy, I forgot.

And no, the Papacy did not invent capitalism. But then again for somebody fixated on a theory that has no evidence to it... well then, as you said, whatever. I will call you on this idiocy every time I see you make it. As to Nader making this point... sorry, last time I checked he hasn't, nor is he a historian.

And I have a lot of respect of Ralph Nader... and I agree with him on many things. But then again he is a well educated man... and it has nothing to do with him being a man... just well read. Try that sometimes.

[defendandprotect]

180. Evdently, you don't understand the distortions presented by PBS? . . . ???

And you don't know that Nader has been talking about corporatism which is fascism

for decades?

More Wow!


As for Vatican and Capitalism . . .

I've previously posted a great deal of info on that subject which is in archives somewhere --

but, here is some quick stuff from internet --




Jean E. BARKER
The Christian roots of capitalism
from: from San Francisco Chronicle, December 25, 2005.


The Victory of Reason
How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
By Rodney Stark


Stark then explores the growth of capitalism from northern Italy to Flanders, Amsterdam and England, and presents case studies of early France and Spain where capitalism didn't take strong root. Along the way Stark finds no evidence for Weber's idea that Protestantism was essential to the growth of capitalism. He maintains that capitalism began under Catholicism, in the rational management of medieval monastic estates, and flourished in Italy long before Luther nailed his theses to a church door. Finally, Stark tests his theories against New World history, covering well-worn ground on the political and economic differences between North and Latin Americas.


http://www.storialibera.it/attualita/occidente/rodney_stark/articolo_en.php?id=3337&titolo=The+Christian+roots+of+capitalism



The Catholic Roots of Capitalism
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Fri, 2005-12-16 10:58
A quote from David Brooks in The New York Times, 15 December 2005

In his new book, '”The Victory of Reason,” the Baylor sociologist Rodney Stark argues that the West grew rich because it invented capitalism. That’s not new. What’s unusual is his description of how capitalism developed. The conventional view, embraced by most of his fellow cultural determinists, is that during the Renaissance and Reformation, Europeans shook off the authority of the Catholic Church. When a secular world was created alongside the sacred one, when intellectual freedom replaced obedience to authority, capitalism and scientific advances were the result. <…>

But the more we learn, the more we realize that most of the progress we link to the Renaissance or later years actually happened during the Middle Ages. <…> Five hundred years before Adam Smith, St. Albertus Magnus explained the price mechanism as what “'goods are worth according to the estimate of the market at the time of sale.” Catholic monasteries emerged as capitalist enterprises, serving not only as manufacturing and trading centers, but also as investment houses.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/578



The earliest forms of capitalism—which we call "mercantilism"—originate in Rome, the Middle East, and the early Middle Ages

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/CAPITAL.HTM

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. Try the Wealth of Nations, like you know the Actual book

Jesus age... unfrigging unbelievable!!!!

You are talking of a TEEEVEEE PROGRAM, I AM TALKING OF AN ACTUAL BOOK FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1776.

By the way CORPORATISM IS NOT CAPITALISM. THAT IS THE POLITE NAME FOR FASCISM. That is poli sci 101.

[defendandprotect]

185. You're saying corporations aren't capitalism . . . ??

You're really getting emotional, nadin --

Try reading the brief material - it is based on the book -- go to the link for

more info.

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. No I am not getting emotional

just pointing out that you are talking apples, I am talking oranges.

Sorry...

By the way, Corporations are part first of MERCANTILISM, NOT CAPITALISM. They are legal creations, first commissioned by kings. Or you are telling me that the East India Company, the best known creature of Mercantilist England was a capitalist Enterprise? It had a few elements, just like Virginia, but it was granted by the Kings and Queens of England.

If you do not know the difference between mercantilism and capitalism, or how corporations worked in either, or for that matter how corporations and their role vis a vis the state changed with the change in economic system, there are many BASIC books to recommend... a course in Political Economy or basic law is highly recommended.

[defendandprotect]

190. Capitalism is a concept . . . mercantilism was part of that concept . . .

read, at least, the very brief into I'm giving you!

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. I went to the actual source

you know the WEALTH OF NATIONS... to use the full title, AN INQUIRY INTO THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.

I know my chronology and I also understand the differences.

I will say it one more time... take a course in Western History, a very basic course... your time line are way off.

And no, Mercantilism IS NOT capitalism... it precedes it...

I highly recommend you read that book, as well, if you are really interested in the subject, which I doubt, David Ricardo on Taxation and Malthus... finish your diet with Mill, and Marx... Those are the CLASSICAL ECONOMISTS describing Capitalism. What we have today ain't Capitalism either...

Alas that is something that will be hotly contested.
But neo-classical economics is not capitalism. Fascism, yes, it does have many elements of it. Capitalism, no.

[defendandprotect]

204. Weare living thru capitalistic crime and corporate corruption . . .

for the second time --

I think we all know what we are experiencing!

And it is fascism -- corporatism/fascism

Again, as long as capitalists call themselves that, that's what we will be calling them!

[nadinbrzezinski]

207. You can use whatever term you want to use

it is not the correct term. Fascism is the correct term... capitalism, as described by Adam Smith, is not.

Actually breaking the too big to fail is very capitalism. Not breaking them is very corporatist. See the difference? No you don't.

In fact, I am willing to lay odds that once we go into the next phase historians will call this period's political economy by a new term...

[defendandprotect]

210. Thank you for your permission . . . and we also call it "fascism" ...

have been calling it that here for years -- along with most other DU'ers . .

If you don't break "too big to fail" -- that's socialism for the rich!

Do you understand that?

Not breaking them, but permitting them to fail is very in line with economic democracy

and fair play!

Do you understand that?

Bail out's are socialism . . .

Permitting these criminal companies to self-destruct would be free-enterprise --




:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

186. Adam Smith . . .

describes capitalism . . .

Capitalism is invented long before Adam Smith --

Same with Calvin --

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. You have not read the book

he was HIGHLY CRITICAL of mercantilism... not capitalism.

[defendandprotect]

191. Adam Smith did not invent capitalism . . . he described it in his book --

Mercantilism is part of the concept of capitalism . . .

[nadinbrzezinski]

194. Since you read the Wealth

you can tell me chapter and verse?

Oh wait, you said you did not.

[defendandprotect]

197. Why would I bother reading a book by Smith which DESCRIBES capitalism . . .

while I'm talking about the INVENTION OF CAPITALISM?

Are you somehow under the illusion that the subject of our debate is "Adam Smith"?

The subject is . . . "Vatican invented capitalism" --

Again . . . capitalism was invented long before Adam Smith --

[nadinbrzezinski]

201. Mostly becauase you are wrong,

Capitalism is not something you can pin on the Vatican... for more info try The Protestant Ethic... or maybe not... after all we know all ills came from the Vatican even those that were not their invention.

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/protestantethic/summary.html

[defendandprotect]

215. Ah . . . is that your problem . . . you see it as "pinning" it on the Vatican?

And, no -- if you read any of the SMALL quotes I gave you with links

they make clear NOT Protestants who did it.

Organized patriarchal religion is guilty for most of the ills of the world --

but let's just stick with the Vatican for now and capitalism . . .

began in Northern Italy . . . Papal States.

[nadinbrzezinski]

216. And women are glorious and would never

ever abuse power or do any of this...

Whatever, we are back to patriarchy is the source of all ills and 320K years ago, before men took their roles and did the naughty, we all lived in heaven.

Whatever... little evidence even for that glorious time in the archeological record.

[defendandprotect]

218. Well, thank you --

"Speak so I shall know you" -- hmmm...


And women are glorious and would never
ever abuse power or do any of this...

Women are an oppressed minority -- which you are fighting not to acknowledge.

And they are oppressed all over the globe by violent males/patriarchy --

It is males who have sent other males to wars --

It is males who have been in charge of the world and its directions for thousands

of years --

It is patriarchy which is at war against nature and women -- and still are --

The Vatican continues to refuse to acknowledge the full personhood of females as it

acknowledges the full personhood of males.


Whatever, we are back to patriarchy is the source of all ills and 320K years ago, before men took their roles and did the naughty, we all lived in heaven.

Whatever... little evidence even for that glorious time in the archeological record.


Did "the naughty" -- you see atomic weapons, wars, and an attack on Nature which has brought

us Global Warming as "the naughty"....???

Throwing Agent Orange on Vietnamese from the skies -- attacking innocent populations with drones!!

Even the Bible speaks of a "Garden of Eden" . . . a more peaceful time before the unrest of the

world brought about by patriarchal violence.

Your evidence collection on all sources seems to be faulty -- !!

[nadinbrzezinski]

221. Sorry for relying on this thing called a record

not mythology...

By the way not only the Bible talks of this glorious age, but again ARCHEOLOGY has found no evidence for this glory age, anywhere in the archeological record.

Now if you hate men and think men are the source of all ills, we are really talking of personal believes, not history, or archeology. Oh and the bible is a collection of myths, and half truths, written under the command of King Josiah in the seventh Century BCE, and the half truths are about the POLITICS of the levant around that time...

Oh and we know that some of the stories are real, see Noah's flood, a Persian Prince who was washed off to sea in the 10th century BCE, for that we do have an archeological record and many stories from many traditions.

My concern is not about blaming half the world's population, but about improving the world for all. So sorry if I prefer facts with my life. Though what you believe in makes perfect sense for a FICTION setting or two.

[defendandprotect]

222. Archaeological records, you mean?

Because they do exist -- and every day prove even further what I am saying to you --

Again, nadin, your research is faulty -- or we are reaching the point where you are

being disingenuous?

And, it looks like you are having more difficulties than with oil and capitalism . . .


Now if you hate men and think men are the source of all ills, we are really talking of personal believes, not history, or archeology.

Again, you are trying to resort to distortion to deal with reality of female oppression I am

discussing. Disingenuous debate, nadin.

That suggests to me that you have no debate -- if so, where is it?


Re the Bible -- there is truth in myth -- most of us recognize that --

However, in the case of the Bible what you have to do is REVERSE much of the

information to understand what was really going on.

Males create life? Where but in the male mind?

And, if you are suggesting that Noah's Ark was found, you've also missed another unveiling of

fraud by the right in recently thread at DU!


My concern is not about blaming half the world's population, but about improving the world for all. So sorry if I prefer facts with my life. Though what you believe in makes perfect sense for a FICTION setting or two.

The most obvious and active energy in our world has been MALE VIOLENCE . . . to ignore that

is to be disingenuous. Our species is the only species where the males are at constant war

vs the female in an effort to wipe them out. You can see this in various parts of the world,

where tens of millions of males -- hundreds of millions -- have no opportunity for a female

partner.

Most of the information on any subject that you have provided has been shown to be fraudulent.

Bye --









Sorry for relying on this thing called a record
not mythology...

By the way not only the Bible talks of this glorious age, but again ARCHEOLOGY has found no evidence for this glory age, anywhere in the archeological record.

Now if you hate men and think men are the source of all ills, we are really talking of personal believes, not history, or archeology. Oh and the bible is a collection of myths, and half truths, written under the command of King Josiah in the seventh Century BCE, and the half truths are about the POLITICS of the levant around that time...

Oh and we know that some of the stories are real, see Noah's flood, a Persian Prince who was washed off to sea in the 10th century BCE, for that we do have an archeological record and many stories from many traditions.

My concern is not about blaming half the world's population, but about improving the world for all. So sorry if I prefer facts with my life. Though what you believe in makes perfect sense for a FICTION setting or two.

[nadinbrzezinski]

223. What records? I have not seen any

and lord knows I read archeology magazines and follow it.

Nice to live in fantasy land.

Have a good life.

Oh and unlike you, I mean it.

This "discussion" is over.

[defendandprotect]

183. And here . . . "Ralph Nader on Corporatism as Fascism" . . .

Note that in the debate sparked by Nader . . .

ON THE LEFT . . . you can read this ...

Firstly, "fascism" is a specific 20th century refinement of despotism and a subgroup thereof. The "ideal type" of fascism, in Weberian terms, is Italian.

The antecedents of fascism are in Catholic corporatism

and much of the ideological thrust is contained in the Futurist Manifesto, which calls for "action" at the expense of reason. Mussolini lays out the fascist vision in "The Corporate State."



http://www.thesocialistparty.org/spo/archive/editorials/wax_fascism.html



AND . . .

Ralph Nader explains Corporatism and its result 4/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbW1G_HA_w



It's not wise to presume that the information you're aware of is all that exists --

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. Free clue, corporatism IS fascism

One Benito Mussolini, like the guy who came up with the word and definition, said such
himself.

This is like history 101, Western European material. The kind undergraduates LEARN in college, like in their first semester.

:-)

Or at least they should.

So if Ralph is saying this, he is repeating Western Civ material.

[defendandprotect]

192. We all know that corporatism is fascism and have been discussing that here at DU . . .

for ages . . .

where have you been?

Ralph Nader has been advising us of this for decades . . .

How behind are you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

195. Ahead of you actually

and I knew that from oh basic Western Civ back in 1983... how bout you peaches?

Don't need Ralph to tell me that... Gransci did though.

[defendandprotect]

196. Mussolini showed us what corporatism was .... quite earlier than 1983 . . .!!

You might also reflect on this long held wisdom . . .

"Politics is the shadow cast over government by corporations" --

I think you should give up for tonight --

You're now starting to sound worn out -- "peaches" . . .

Given a choice, you always take the low road, eh?

Bye --

[nadinbrzezinski]

198. You asked when "I" learned about it

not when it started.

For when it started, try 1924... well before I was born, and I suspect well before YOU were born.

But you asked who was my teacher, letters from Prison by Gramsci, I had a great instructor in Western Civ 102... she liked to challenge us and shit. These days the righties would label her a commie.

Now make it right and truly go bye.

You've chosen the low road with those that don't agree with you, and have history on their side.

By the way the Rallies of 1927 when Benito took over were something to behold, according to historians. I don't claim to have seen them, and I doubt Ralph claims that either. Mostly he wasn't alive either

You should know though that early Nuremberg Rallies were based on those.

[defendandprotect]

200. No -- I asked you how far behind in reading DU you are ?

and how far behind on knowledge re Ralph Nader --

Anyone aware of WWII history knows Mussolini/corporatism/fascism --

Yeah . . . try to close by belittling Ralph Nader -- !!

Wow --

Have a good night -- get some rest!

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. Oh now you change the subject

Dear I have been making this contention that we live in a Fascist state for years. Try to keep up.

[defendandprotect]

206. You're way behind me in years . . . let me assure you of that!

:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

208. Ok where do you want me to send the cane for the

birthday?

And I doubt you were alive in 1927 and old enough to remember what what going on and be fully aware of it today.

[defendandprotect]

209. Do I sound like I'm not aware . . . ?

But it would be more like post WWII baby boomer --

[tavalon]

78. I think we're going to do a feudalism again

I know it's a redo but I don't see our country becoming more enlightened so Socialism is out and Communism has its own problems and well, too many of our people are easily led to buy into whatever the moneyed elite want, so feudalism is my best guess. We're actually well into fascism but (and maybe I'm misunderstanding here) that isn't an economic system.

[jmondine]

80. lower case-ism

[WCGreen]

93. sorry, I didn't read all the posts and just posted the same thing....

[jmondine]

83. Capitalism 2: Electric Bugaloo

[tavalon]

112. As you know, Mr. Mondine, I usually love your one liners

every bit as much as I love you (how long have we been together now?) but this topic is a lot more interesting than a one liner. What do you think comes after Capitalism? I'm not sure we've ever talked at length about that. Funny, because we share hearth and home and I know most of your politics but I find I am unsure where you stand on this.

[tavalon]

116. PS

Thank you for the interesting offline conversation about Empires and how they fall. Not entirely about this subject and yet interesting nonetheless. I may try to start a thread on that topic.

[jmondine]

85. A bunch of blue dogs on leashes

[tom_paine]

89. Extinction? The beginning of the journey towards...

[WCGreen]

92. lowercaseism....

[Hekate]

95. What Louis XV said: Apres moi, le Deluge.

[patrick t. cakes]

96. my french is rusty...

after me, the deluge?

yikes:scared:

[Hekate]

114. Basically, if the world is wrecked because of him, not his problem. Capitalists don't give a damn...

... anymore than King Louis did, and they don't think there's any such thing as an economic or ecological guillotine in their future either.

After capitalism? Wreckage, imo.

Hekate

[struggle4progress]

113. Marx is a complicated thinker: at times, he is interested in philosophy, at times in anthropology or

times in the economy, at times in actual politics, at times in political science; at some times he is a moralist, and at others a political activist and propagandist. He is interested in the question of how social change occurs; his answer is that different groups of people in a society have different material interests, so that conflict is inevitable. How that conflict actually plays out depends on how people view it; they may understand it by using traditional cultural ideas or by using their experience from their own history or by overlaying it with superstition or in other ways

As a political activist, Marx wants people to understand their society and its conflicts by examining critically the different economic interests of different groups, in order to think clearly about how various subgroups in the society might respond to various possible resolutions

For example, in a society composed of slaves and slaveholders, the slaves have some interest in rearranging affairs so that their labor is not regarded as a property right of the slaveholders; the slaveholders are expected to respond to conflict in a way reinforcing their right to the labor of the slaves; the conflict might play out in various ways -- depending on culture and history, depending on how well-organized or how well-armed the slaves and slaveholders are -- but the underlying conflict itself cannot end until the society has been reorganized so it does not depend on slave labor

Similarly, there is a natural source of conflict in a society where some people own the factories and the rest of the people rent themselves out as workers to the factory owners. The factory owners and workers will see this conflict through different eyes, since they have different interests. The conflict may play out in various ways, depending on local history and culture, and depending how people interpret it, but the underlying conflict is a consequence of the economic organization of the society, and the particular conflict cannot disappear until the economic organization of the society changes

[tavalon]

117. Somewhere in this thread, you broke your 1000 post mark

So, congratulations! Many people like to break 1000 with thought provoking threads. Few of us actually manage it, so kudos.

I've bookmarked this thread to help my reading list.

[JVS]

118. Well first we have the orgy of violence and destruction.

[mikelgb]

119. Revolution

[Odin2005]

120. A Zero-Scarcity Society (think Star Trek)

No resources on hand, but the increases in productivity caused by technology is the death knell of Capitalism via Technological Unemployment.

[patrick t. cakes]

125. could you elaborate?

this sounds interesting

[Odin2005]

152. The basis is cheap, efficient, customizible, local manufacturing based on nano-technology.

The only limiting factor is energy, which is why we need to get away from coal-based electricity ASAP, since a major source of material would be carbon extracted from atmospheric CO2 (and carbonaceous asteroids later on), which is energy intensive. Complete zero-scarcity is impossible, there will always be rare resources that cannot be substitutes and skills (like music, architectural design, etc) only a limited number of people have, but it will be like what mathematicians call an Asymptote, getting closer and closer but never quite reaching it.

[patrick t. cakes]

161. something akin to city states? or smaller?

[Odin2005]

177. perhaps, but I was thinking economic decentralization istead of political.

[Terry in Austin]

172. The limiting factor is indeed energy

That's the crux of it.

I can't share your optimism about abundant sources of energy post-oil and post-coal, however. There will of course be non-fossil sources that will produce measurable amounts of energy for us, but not on a large enough scale even to replace the amount of our present use, let alone to power any progress. Not even close, if you take a really careful look at the prospects.

I do agree about relocalization of manufacture, though, and would add relocalization of governance, as well.

Nanotech? Perhaps we'll see some, but at this point, it would be wise to manage our expectations about it. Really high technology depends on a really deep energy base, and that might not turn out to be a given.

[TheKentuckian]

130. Filthy air, depleted land, foul water, and a bleak outlook for most life

if we don't stop the train pretty quick.

[Neron616]

133. In the dictionary? CAPITULATION

Just do what our owners tell us, and maybe we get a few crumbs!

[defendandprotect]

155. I'm replying here for the moment because your post isn't appearing ...

properly in the thread line up in my vision of it --

[Better Believe It]

159. Answer: Nuclear war and a barbarian tribal society if the capitalists have their way.

[arbusto_baboso]

163. Either Feudalism or complete anarchy.

There really aren't any other possibilities.

[tavalon]

164. Could you elaborate?

[arbusto_baboso]

167. No.

[Terry in Austin]

170. Anarchy isn't really a possibility

But there are others besides feudalism. Capitalism is a relatively late development, fifteenth century. As a species, we've been pretty creative in coming up with various ways to organize our political and economic lives.

"Anarchy" implies an absence of governance, a vacuum that doesn't go unfilled for very long.

Granted, a system of feudalism among a lot of aggressive minor warlords may look pretty wild and woolly, but it is a kind of governance.

[arbusto_baboso]

171. You would regard Somalia as feudal rather than anarchic?

To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think this word means what you think it means."

[Terry in Austin]

174. You've elaborated after all

:hi:

Somalia is an interesting case. The answer to your question would probably make good material for a Master's thesis.

I know it's been fashionable in some Libertarian circles to point to Somalia as a case of "stateless anarchism that works." But it's discussions like this that make such terms meaningful, and the "anarch-" family of terms is a particularly slippery one!

[mdmc]

173. star trek

[Swamp Rat]

175. DAMMIT!

I was about to post the same thing!!! :D

[mdmc]

176. jaja

:)

[Octafish]

181. War.

What else? What goes with war?

Death. Destruction. Devastation.

We've been at war, pretty freaking steadily, since 1939.

Burning the oil, polluting the air and water, destroying the land -- all have served, first and foremost, the national security state, its keepers, and the wealthiest of the wealthy who employ them.

And they may be the only ones to survive what they have wrought us today.

[harun]

182. We already have Communism here, it is just that the upper class are the only

ones allowed in to the commune.

Look at the Gov't bailouts of the banks, auto industry and the housing industry. Those helped the upper class. The rest of us just got the bill.

[lum3n]

199. capitalism

please visit http://www.lumenoptions.com/>Options
http://www.lumenoptions.com/workshop-options/>Workshop Options if you want know more about capitalism...

[Kalun D]

202. The proper question is

what follows predatory corporatism

because this ain't capitalism

[Kitsune]

212. America isn't capitalist. It's feudalist.

The nobility has just realized that they can't call themselves that, and that 'capitalism' and 'free markets' poll better.

[MkapX]

213. It's a little long but

Marx stated that the next evolution is socialism. But i would beg to differ i think it branches out like a tree. In which it can go Corporatism(which unfortunately america is headed toward right now) or democratic socialism. Of course capitalism was still young in the time of Marx and i think he had no idea that it would one day grow into the mega corporations of today although he does hint at it

Capitalism can be traced to the 1400's Middle Ages just after the bubonic plague. Before the plague serfs were slaves to their land, unable to leave and unable to have a demand pay or liberty. The plague changed all that, because their was a shortage in workers due to the mass deaths of the poor. It created a work force that could demand pay, rent, or privileges. If your lord didn't want to pay you...fine go somewhere else and find a lord you would pay you. It was classic supply and demand. Marx noted that shortly after this came the Peasant Revolt in which peasants rose up against the new tax laws being levied against them. People started to open their minds to philsophies as the church was helpless against the plague they started to read the bible in their own language which was sin back then. It was the beginning of liberty. It could be said that Socialism and capitalism were joined at the hip during birth cause Wat Tyler; the revolt's leader demanded that the crown redistribute the wealth. Likewise, French writer Phillippe de Mezieres noticing the corruption of the catholic church wrote a poem to then King Richard II in which envisioned a kingdom where wealth was redistributed and the king ruled in the interest of the commoners. Philppe wrote.

"All fruits were held in common by the inhabitants, to each according to his need, and the words my own were never used. All tyranny was banished from the garden and their was a king who stood for the authority of the common good."

Capitalism grew during the English Civil wars in the 1600's in which Parliament tried and succeeded in ebbing away the power of the monarch. While Socialism philosophy was grounded in the French Revolution. Out of these philosophies came such writers as Hobbes, Locke who once wrote the phrase "Life, liberty and the pursuit of property" and of course Adam Smith. These writers believe in a social contract between people and government in which government's role was to serve people and that people had the right to revolt if they were not satisfy with government (this if of course after all other non violent means had been exhausted. John Locke believed that if a person found something in nature (such as land or a apple tree) it was rightfully his and therefore became property, at the same time he was against hoarding property or taking more then one's share. And that government's only role was to protect the property holder's

[AngryAmish]

217. THUNDERDOME!

Who runs Bartertown?

[BOG PERSON]

219. The common ruin of the contending classes n/t