: : Hmm. "Soviet Union"... The only thing I can think of was a totalitarian state set up in Eastern Europe at the end of WWI that fell prey to the heirarchical nature of the power base in it (i.e. the bosses creamed off the profits for themselves, as usually happens in capitalist systems).: ::Humans are selfish and greedy by nature.
: : Again, spoken with all the force and conviction of a deity. I bow to your superior wisdom; your immense brain has obviously examined in depth every possible future for the entire human race.
: Do you see? You have just contradicted yourself. I'm not claiming to be any smarter than you so I won't insult your intelligence by explaining why you contradicted yourself.
Actually, I didn't contradict myself. In my first statement, I said that societies organized on heirarchical lines _usually_ ended up producing a layered society, that this brought about the fall of the ideals of Communism. It was not a categorical statement and did not attempt to say anything about systems other than capitalist ones.
Your statement was a generalisation applied to the whole of humanity at all time and under all conditions. Hence my (admittedly slightly clumsy) use of sarcasm. You cannot make that sort of universal statement without disclaimers and modifiers.
My statement was not hugely specific, nevertheless, it addressed _one_ system and _one_ set of conditions. No contradiction: run it through a symbolic logic analysis if you don't believe me.
(If you really want to be pedantic about the whole thing, it's best to tell me via @mail in future. My address is provided.)
: : : An econimic system must be designed that can accomodate the needs of the human race.
: : An economic system must be designed that can accommodate the needs of the entire planet. Not one that accommodates the whims of the richest 10% for about 250 years before destroying the planet's life-bearing weave. Oh, for your information, the 250-year glut started about 220 years ago.
: You say capitalism isn't fair. It's the fairest thing we've got, though. While a small number of people may be kept from succeding under Capitalism, everyone is kept from succeding under socialism. It's equal, but not fair. It makes everybody misserable.
Has history come to a full stop?
One of Marx's key points was the theory of historical inevitability - the political systems of the world have evolved alongside humanity. I'm not a Marxist, but I'd say this was a good (if flawed) model of the life of the political beast. Capitalism may (or may not) be the "fairest system yet" - that does not mean we shouldn't try for anything better. I'm an anarchist - I don't know if society can survive and thrive in an anarchist society, but I feel it's worth experimenting with.
: : Actually, on paper, Das Kapital is one of the most forbiddingly large books you're ever likely to find. It's also very difficult to read.
: Have you read it? No really, have you? In my 16 short years on this planet, I haven't had time to sit down with that one, but I would like to if you recomend it.
To be honest, you'd do much better to read a good digest of it. It's really hard going - I've never really got into it very far.
: Capitalism offers equality of opportunity. Everybody has the same chance at success. Socialism is simply equality of results. No one has the chance to become something better.
So Jose living in the shanties of Sao Paulo has the same opportunity as Joe living in Bel Air? How interesting, I never realised. Or are you trying to say that they have equal chances of "bettering themselves"? (despite the fact that your average Brazilian kid probably can't read)
: : The "real" world, as I understand it, is a rocky satellite of a middle-of-the-road star and is host to various carbon-based life forms. These life forms exist in a balance, such that harmful materials are processed out of the system. If one species becomes dominant and produces enough in the way of toxins, the balance may well change.
: I have yet to be convinced that the earth is in some amount of serious trouble because of our existance. If you feel this way, may I suggest a web site for you: www.paranoia.com/coe/
Planetary Atmospheres (3C28) in my degree provided me with all the evidence I need to believe in climate change. If you like, though, I will ask a friend of mine doing a PhD (in atmospheric physics) at Cambridge for her opinion.
: I don't think that pollution will be the end of us. At the rate of population growth that we are now experiencing we may meet our end due to over-crowding. But hey, I'll bet you're a Darwinist. Survival of the fittest.
I'm divided on this. Part of me says "of course we'll die out eventually, why not sooner". On balance, I feel it would be a Bad Thing, not least in terms of human suffering. I'm not a Darwinist, as I've explained before - Kropotkin had an equally valid point in saying that considerable inter- and intra-species co-operation features in evolution.
: : Human nature is not "real" in any conventional sense. Human pollution is. Guns are a more immediate threat to me than divine retribution.
: You don't have to many guns to worry about in the UK. Here in America we have the second amendment that gurantees us the right to keep and bear arms. If they ever change the constitution then the moral fabric of this nation has been shredded. I will find a different country.
Hang on a sec. You're saying that we don't have to worry as much about guns in the UK, then you say that if things were changed, you'd leave the country. Hmmmm.
As for saying that the moral fabric of the country depends on your ability to kill other people as easily as possible, I'd have to ask:
What's the fabric?
The original point I was making is that the physical world has an "objective" existence that the human one doesn't - I defy anyone to find me an atom of truth or a religion plant. Of course, although I wasn't going to cloud a good phrase then, this is a gross oversimplification, in that whilst religion may not hurt me directly, a fatwa is likely to make my life shorter. OK, the "human" world has no objective existence, but it shapes the "real" one we live in. That's probably why it's so important to fight cases like the McLibel trial, lest we get forced to live in McHell because we didn't oppose their ideology.
As for the right to bear arms, I've got two, they work perfectly, but I only exercise the "bearing" bit in hot weather. They're all I need.
Eeep, what a long post.
: The great consolation in life is to say what one thinks.
: --Voltaire
If you're forever thinking about bread, prepare to be toasted.
--Gideon.
