0
   

Globalization and its discontents

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 01:29 pm
dag,

Saying that fish swim is a generalization. It's also simplistic. Yet it has value rooted in fact. What factual basis do you claim in calling my argument oversimplistic? Furthermore, I did not say that first worlders should not complain. Just that their complaints are whiny, which is my opinion.

Equating capitalism to Christianity is both an insipid argument and a relevant one. Humans are instinctually competitive, humans are also exhibit strong tendency toward superstition. I never claimed some see it and some don't. Simply that human nature is capitalist (with no claim as to the degree to which it is or the likelyhood of anyone seeing it that way). A case can be made that human nature is also socialist using the same ratiocination I employed, but since you made no significant attempt to understand my sentence I'll spend as little effort in explaining it.

I will, however, take issue with your convenient definition of capitalism. It is not simply an ideal. It is not rooted entirely in ideology. It's also based on the law of survival of the fittest. That IS a natural law.

soz,

In the small quote you excerpted there is a glaring factual error. Since several of my earlier posts contain a factual reference that would explain and support my allegation I won't repeat it ad nauseum. I'll simply say, thanks for the article but if it is not truthful (in a factual way, not in subjective interpretation) it is of little use.

Ok, ok, I'll be less curt and explain:

"sinking currency ...seemed to be just that, shadows."

The currency SUNK. It was not a shadow. It was not "feared to sink" it sunk. This is numerical fact.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 03:02 pm
craven, i am sick and feel like crap, so i won't go into much right now. but you claiming that humans have a capitalist nature is just that: your claim, your opinion. not a fact. that's what i meant by some not seeing it that way. i grew up being brainwashed by the establishment that humans are inherently socialist, collective beings. i don't accept either. humans are different, some believe this, some that. you believe this, which is very ok, but that still dont' make it a fact. i did not say capitalism is an ideal, but that it is based on a few core ideas, which is true of any system humans create. there is a difference between the two. it also depends on what kind of capitalism you are talking about- classical 19th century, or with the 20th century perks of the welfare state, or neoliberal, they are different animals. just like among socialists or mercantilists, you will find all kinds of capitalist promoters, some pushing for hayekian liberal version, with the minimum state and trickle down others, pushing the keynesian version with concern for representation of interests, benefits, etc. so i don't quite see how all of those can be in one sack and attributed to mankind in general. that's all there was on mu mind. back to bed.
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 03:17 pm
capitalism = natural selection = survival of the fittest = human Idea Idea
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 04:26 pm
How odd, I'm sick too and have gone home for the day. I'm off to bed as well. An evil person kept me awake all night.

BTW, facts can be opinions as well. We'll do this later, my brother got off the hook today because I'm sick and if I waste any time online it will be to tackle his post.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 04:42 pm
The "survival of the fittest" sociodarwinism sounds terrible to me. Sounds Spartan, totalitarian, unfair.

Plus it's not true. Because it really tends to apply to "fittest societies", not "fittest individuals".

Che Guevara was some kind of a Marxist saint. He wanted to create a "new man", a person full of solidarity towards his neighbors, his equals, his brethren. Why did he want such "Communist upbringing"? Because -he confessed- Communist economy cannot bring the conforts Capitalist economy can. Too late did Guevara learn that Marx was near the truth in one thing: "the structure determines the superstructure" (economics plays great influence on ideology). If there is no affluency, everyone is, mostly, for him/herself, no matter what ideology you push.

In other words, I don't think selfishness is embedded in humankind, but as long as needs are not met, it's here to stay.

-------

While I agree that Capitalism works better than Socialism, there's a long road to go, in order to give something that's near to a minimum of equal opportunities to everyone.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2003 07:05 pm
IMHO, I think the best form of economics is something between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism will generate better quality and prices from competition, while socialism will be kind to those unable to help themselves to a livelyhood. c.i.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 12:53 am
Ok- while Craven is sleeping off what appears to have been a night of wild goings on (raised eyebrows) - let us take the opportunity to gather our forces and begin chipping away at his arguments.

1. What is the basis, Craven, for youtr statements tht ahuman nature is capitalist?

(that is enough for now - gotta go out...)
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 02:13 am
Simple, I DO think selfishness is deeply embbeded in humans. Not need, but pure unadultured greed.

Expenditures rise to meet income only because humans are rarely happy with what they ahve and are only appeased by what the future might have in store.

All the lefties I know who espouse some brand of socialism are hypocrites who never practice what they preach. They live lives that are the epitome of capitalism while railing against it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 02:15 am
fbaezer,

Survival of a fit group is the essence of survival of the fittest in the same way that individual fitness is. Nowhere does the term "survival of the fittest" limit this law to individuals.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 07:52 pm
Craven, sure greed is there - so, it would seem, and as deeply embedded as a survival trait, is co-operation and sharing.

For some cultures, as in Australian Aboriginal cultures, the whole society is based on it - and it has survived white conquest, and frequently makes life hard for urban aboriginal people, deeply embedded in a very different culture.

We can all point to this and that as "human nature" - and find examples of what we wish to point out.

I agree with you that greed (or perhaps fear of not having enough - but this is somewhat of a quibble since the effect is the same) is a strong factor. I also believe that its opposite is too - but more oriented to small groups than to large ones, such as nations and the globe.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 08:11 pm
potlatch
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 10:36 pm
Gezundheit.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2003 10:38 pm
I don't think general rules stand up to the details of reality. Many cultures learn to share what they have with everybody else, no matter how scarce. In their world, "survival of the fittest" is an unknown expression. In the western world, we hear such terms since childhood, and it is ingrained into our psyche. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2003 02:05 am
No deb, we don't agree. I did not say greed was a "strong factor". I said it was human nature. I know you are trying to find common ground but in this case it's a futile gesture.

I am not going to "point to this and that" and find cultural backing because as you said that is another futility.

Thing is, the dogmatic ideological opposition to Capitalist hegemony has made my comment into something it was not. I don't know if you might have noticed but long ago I said that Socialism is human nature as well. I also said I would not spend time trying to explain something when n attempt whatsoever is made to comprehend it.

You say: "Craven, sure greed is there - so, it would seem, and as deeply embedded as a survival trait, is co-operation and sharing. "

I said as much a LONG time ago ("A case can be made that human nature is also socialist using the same ratiocination I employed"). Please think outside the ideological box. No need to dredge up old socialist arguments.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2003 02:11 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I don't think general rules stand up to the details of reality.


ci,

This is faulty logic. Saying that generalizations do not pertain to reality IS a generalization. As I said earlier there are 100% factual generalizations.

e.g: all humans were born in the solar system

Yes, the example is ridiculous, but the generalization that generalizations do not stand up forces such a statement.

If one wants to dissmiss an argument as a generalization they must provide factual or logical basis for this or they will simply be guilty of another generalization.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2003 02:27 am
Hmm - I am not aware of trying to find common ground - nor do I recall your previous comments re human nature.

What I was arguing against is the comment I thought you made that capitalism is human nature - which appeared to me to preclude the notion of other forces - I was arguing against what appeared to me to be a blanket statement. It appears I have misunderstood you.

" I also said I would not spend time trying to explain something when no attempt whatsoever is made to comprehend it."

Explain, or don't - if you do I "will try to comprehend it."

My "ideological box" is, while I know it is there, a seemingly a very soggy one - since I am as frequently accused of being a rampant conservative as I am accused of being a socialist ideologue.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2003 03:00 am
I have never seen you accused of being a conservative and would certainly never label you as such.

As you know, my name for you is "tree hugging hippy". With strong communist overtones. :-)

My comment that you do not recall can be found on the page before this one.

My comment WAS a blanket statement, and as I have said over and over blanket statements CAN BE TRUE. Simply identifying a generalization does not debunk it.

Beyond that I won't try to explain it. Like I said, this became an ideological issue to some and this is futile.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2003 06:13 am
LOL! Well, have a good night in your blanket! Um não necessita ser árvore-abraçar hippy para ser chamado tais -
nem para necessitar um seja um comunista, nem socialist uniforme, ser
chamado isso. É meus amigos que me vêem como muito conservador -
though alguns deles para fazer fazem o comentário sneering impar
sobre árvores! Eu suspeito que eu sou meramente assim
wishy-wishy-washy nestas matérias a respeito de offend todos!

And there is an end of it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2003 01:13 pm
Craven, I'm talking about human socialism behavior. c.i.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2022 at 07:20:00