Globalize Resistance

[Dave Biggins]

Another one fundemental flaw in Marx's Communist Manifesto was making alot of assumptions. First he assumed that the burgiose (sp?) was everything that was wrong with the world. The second assumption that he made was that the proletariate was everything right in the world. He followed the assumption that the proletariate would work in this new society providing their very best without want or need. It is want and need, however, that drives society.

Marx and Engels were intellectuals. They knew as much about the proletariate as the typical factory worker knew Proust. The heaviest lifting they did was in the library. Intellectuals have wonderful ideas but a tenuous grasp of reality.

I can best liken it to some experiences a friend of mine while doing stage work in New York. He'd get a diagram to how they'd want the stage set with props and such put together by an engineer. Not a day would go by when he would have to go and make changes. A plan looking good on paper is no guarantee that it would work out in reality.

Here's another one for those who served in the military: how often did the operation follow the OPORD? How often did it seem that there were more FRAGOs zipping about like mosquitos in Fort Bragg?

[qerlin]

I hear that Biggins. My first rule: the Opord is great...until you hit the enemy. Then it's improvision.

Also, the military is a prime example of socialism in action: your food, health care, etc. are handled for you...anybody in the service ever get a good doctor? (I mean a GOOD doctor...not just one that was better than the other guys in the service.) How 'bout those long waits for motrin and crutches - no matter what ailed you. How about the cruddy housing? The lack of fundimental rights?

It was in defending our society I learned what the alternative was like. F*** that.

[Liquidator Queeg]

Originally posted by qerlin
The lack of fundimental rights?

It was in defending our society I learned what the alternative was like. F*** that.

Military life and socialism may seem analogous on the surface -- but they aren't. Not even close. Primarily because of the "lack of fundamental rights" as you point out above, qerlin.

"Socialism" is entirely based on the premise that all members of society have equality of fundamental rights and equality of opportunity to benefit from the care, production and protection society can offer.

This is patently untrue of the military. Does a general get the same access to food, health care and guarantee of protection as a private? Certainly not. The rights and benefits afforded you in the military are entirely based upon your rank.

If anything, IMHO, the military is more aptly comparared to capitalism at its worst. The benefits you reap in capitalist society are directly related to the "social rank" you hold compared to the other members of society. This basically means that the richer you are the more you can benefit from what society has to offer, and the more you are generally held in esteem by the rest of society.

Sure, the private will snicker and jeer at the benefits afforded a general, just as the working poor man in capitalist society snickers and jeers at Donald Trump. Yet both find themselves in the unenviable position of being completely unable to do anything about it -- unless they improve their "ranks" and reap the benefits their respective societies can offer them.

Steve

[First of Two]

Anyone, through hard work, can advance in rank in the military.

Socialism, while eliminating 'rank', also makes it so that the reward for working harder is... nothing.

[Liquidator Queeg]

Anyone, through hard work, can advance in rank in the military.

Socialism, while eliminating 'rank', also makes it so that the reward for working harder is... nothing.

Advancing in rank in the military is certainly possible with hard work. To what are you refering to as "the reward for working harder"?

The answer, I suppose, depends on how you define "socialism" -- the very reason I used it in quotation marks in my post above.

Socialism comes in many forms. When most people use the word "socialism" they are referring to the Marxist socialism, or Communism -- a political and economic theory proposing the formation of a state in which the means of production and control of distribution is owned collectively by all citizens.

Full-out "Communism" is not the only kind of socialism that exists. Democratic socialism, for example, is alive and well in many Western countries: Canada, Sweden, Germany, Norway ... even the United States to a limited extent. In north America, however, "socialism" is a taboo word -- largely because of innacurate pre-conceived notions of what socialism actually is. Too many people lump socialism and communism together as inherently "bad" and "restrictive to freedom." Which is bollocks. Socialism has advanced beyond Marx and his erroneous solutions.

Thus, we call many rights and privileges of capitalist society "democratic" because that word is far more pleasing to the ear. Universal health care, trade unions, minimum working wages, free access to education -- these are all aspects of "democratic socialism" at work, creating a more benevolent and functionable society, for the rich and the poor.

So, to finally come full circle First of Two, what is the reward for working harder in a country that promotes "socialism":

Everyone benefits. What better reward could there be?

Steve

P.S. As others have capably pointed out in this thread, there are numerous problems with Marxist theory. I want to make it clear that I'm not advocating Marxist socialism. However, socialist ideals have not remained trapped by outdated 19th Century solutions and arguments -- despite what some of these clowns involved with Globalize Resistance (or whatever damn name they choose to go by) would have you believe. Most of them are fools anyway, who couldn't "socialize" their way out of a wet paper bag.

[First of Two]

"Everyone benefits"

Perhaps.

However, this is much less noticeable to the individual doing the work than is a jump in salary, or, from the innovator's point of view, a profit return.

Take R&D. Why do companies engage in R&D? Is it to benefit the 'human condition?' No, it's to increase profits in the long-term by filling new needs / improving the product. It's to pay for new Maseratis / DVD players / home computers / Condos in Arizona / girlfriends.

To change this into doing altruism-based research, you'd need to eliminate all desire for the above and similar things.

Now, since I very much doubt that the socialists can give us all free self-upgrading laptops, and I KNOW they can't introduce me to a brilliant Tori Amos lookalike, I can't believe that they'll ever be able to fulfull all these needs.

The best they can hope for is to convince the masses that they should 'want what they have' rather than 'have what they want.'

Which won't work on any humans I am acquainted with.

[Dave Biggins]

Originally posted by Steven A Cook
Thus, we call many rights and privileges of capitalist society "democratic" because that word is far more pleasing to the ear. Universal health care, trade unions, minimum working wages, free access to education -- these are all aspects of "democratic socialism" at work, creating a more benevolent and functionable society, for the rich and the poor.

So, to finally come full circle First of Two, what is the reward for working harder in a country that promotes "socialism":

Everyone benefits. What better reward could there be?

A very valid point, Steve. I know it wasn't addressed to me but I hope you don't mind me piping in.

By capitalism, you counteract a darker side of mankind-complacency (or sloth, if you will).

You are right that all functioning nations practice a combination of the two including the United States. You don't want your citizens wallowing in misery yet you don't want them sitting on their butts. The balance of the two depends on the character of the populace and current events.

Let's take a look at Canada and the US. A Canadian would find the social services available in the US to be lacking. An American living in Canada would find the taxes to be positively draconian. Each are happy (for the most part) in their own nation.

Does this mean that there are no Canadian enterprises? Nope, the govenment knows better than to strangle the goose that laid the golden egg (and their accountants are just as slick as ours). Does this mean that if a wino were shot and stumbled into an American Hospital he'd be left to bleed on the floor? Nope, he'd be cared for and the hospital would write off the losses (of course if he were to stumble into the hospital asking for a nose job, he'd be told to take a hike).

Different strokes for different folks.

[Capt.Hunter]

Regarding the mental need of humanity for possessions beyond those necessary for comfort and survival: we can't say that people will always want such things - because our own mindset is so ingrained in wanting them. The point being that that was not always the case. Britain has just had a rather disturbing documentary series on TV about social psychology. How a cousin of Sigmund Freud (can't remember his name, but he was the guy who did President Truman's PR) helped mold social desires to (as he saw it) focus society away from its darker side. He helped companies launch advertising campaigns that did what no-one had thought possible before - get people to buy things they didn't need and didn't really want. He even got American society to accept women smoking (prior to that it was a social taboo and most women disliked the idea anyway) by pushing the notion that it empowered them.

Nowadays, this is so commonplace we can't even imagine that people might once have been happy just having enough to live on and the odd extravagance once in a while. Today, we're a consumer culture - we want, pure and simple. And if we can't have, we're not happy. I mean, do you really think kids would want the latest toy if the pressure wasn't to keep up with every other kid in the playground?

As a related example, the US recently withdrew the $1 million reward in Afghanistan for info leading to the capture of Bin Laden because the people there couldn't understand the concept of that much money. It means nothing to them. Offer them a piece of territory or a herd of goats and they can grasp it, because that's their concept of being rich. In a society where everyone has the same wealth and is comfortable, there is no inherent pressure to grab for more, as there's no other side for the grass to look greener on.

Am I making sense here? It does worry me when I tell people that as long as I'm earning enough to live moderately comfortably and eating well that I'm happy, but they can't see how I don't want more. Yeah, a new car would be nice, but the one I've got still gets me about and isn't costing me £8000 or more.

[Joe Dizzy]

What Capt. Hunter said.

(Yeah, I hate those me-too posts, too.)

[J. Maynard]

Hi everybody!).

Well, I certainly don’t too agree with many things on the manifesto, but guess what?
I don’t agree with many of Querlin’s conclusions neither.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We are diverse..." Diversity as unity is a questionable ideal; it rarely happens.”

Questionable because rarely happens? We might criticize something for what it stands for, but criticize an ideal because its goals are difficult to accomplish is, in itself, questionable. Should we criticize Christ because He set difficult to attain goals?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“They talk about alternate solutions they are coming up with. None are voiced here. “

“So, what is your solution?” you might ask, well, you don’t need to have a solution to know things are not going well. Many protesters don’t have solutions, only problems they would like to see solved.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The kicker: they are fighting capitalism and patriarchy. Where have we heard that before?”

Many times. But what is the problem with that? It is not as if the system is perfect. You can hear critical voices against capitalism in many people that certainly aren’t communists. The pope for instance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“My analysis: you've got people operating on a socialist/communist ideology. I find it interesting this is the only solution that Europe's really been able to sling around since the 1848 revolutions. Save for fascism, but that's just another form of statism.”

There isn’t one Anti-Globalisation movement, there are many, and you can find many different opinions in these groups, some are actually in direct opposition to each other.
Also, a lot of people that are “against Globalisation” really are against how it is being done, not against the idea itself.
Some are communist, many are not. And no, that is not the only solution ever tried in Europe. Social Democracy was a rather successful experiment, until recent times. And calling fascism to statism, well, many such regimens actually have capitalistic elements too, should we say that fascism is another form capitalism because of that?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Everything from sunspots to hair loss is caused by the capitalist system. Environmental degredation -- they have a point here, though I think it arguable how badly we have affected the planet.”

The problem is, if some corporations have their way, we will never do anything to better our environment, if it cuts their profit margin. This issue reminds me of the tobacco industry denials of the risk of lung cancer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“ Wars -- most of the wars currently in action around the world have nothing to do with corporate sponsorship. (I'm surprised no one's try to buy ad sapce on tanks, actually...)

But one of the top industries in our little planet IS the arms industry. Do we have any idea of how profitable these little wars are? And don’t be so sure about Big Corporation involvement in
Third World “petty” wars. It is well known that corporations and corrupt governments make strange bedfellows (just look at the Angolan war).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Destruction of social solidarity -- was there ever any? Really?”

Actually, in Western Europe it did exist to some extent (if you think of Social Security), and now there are voices (Neoliberal voices) that desire to end it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Opposition to war. Find me someone who really WANTS war. “

Bin Laden, and many more fanatics, be they arabs or not. It is amazing as some really disturbing characters reach important political and military positions, inclusive in the West

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“…But it's a sentiment I agree with. I wish we could just talk things over, but sometimes reason doesn't work. As for the condemnation of all violence..I didn't hear too much out of these guys when the al-Qaida beheaded one of our soldiers. At least our prisoners are well-fed, have health care, and are allowed to practice their religion without impediment (gee, so much for the demonization of Islam...) “

Here I agree, some wars are, unfortunately, necessary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
”The war destabilizes the Middle East and harms poor, innocent Palestinians. Have you been there? No good guys. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians truly want peace. They just want victory.”

Again, unfortunately that seems the truth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
“ Argentina has been screwed by capitalists. Not entirely. The IMF is a cpaitalist organ with an awful track record for aiding the developing world. But they took the loan. “

IMF economical solutions are often draconian, they usually don’t take into account it’s results in the living conditions of the populations affected by the measures they propose. Also, the real effectiveness of their proposed measures is debatable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The other troubles were due to a half-assed system of government regulation of the alleged free-market. You can't do an economic system halfway or you get this kind of thing. Rejecting the criminalization of social movements: hear hear! Political speech is the most important form of speech.”

Perhaps that is just part of it. Bad government is bad news for all, sue enough. But blind belief in the market forces is a sure way to disaster.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
“Analysis: capitalists bad. Hurt Argentines. But they took the loans. If I'm dumb enough to tkae a credit card with 23%+ interest, that's my bad; save applies here: caveat debtor. “

Perhaps, but that doesn’t make the credit card company good, neither.
An absurd example: If someone sells his soul to the devil, does this make the devil’s action acceptable? (not that I’m saying that IMF is the devil, mind you )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
“ Enron: corruption exemplifying the captialist system. Actually, Enron broke the laws of the capitalist system, the first being: don't screw your investors.

Analysis: see, Enron shows capitalism bad. Actuality, Enron was a Ponzi scheme that had the investor known about it, wouldn't have been so bad. Arrest and try the guys responsible; the invesor should class action suit the guys that crept off with their golden parachustes for compensation. “

Yes, here is a real big problem. Deviance from how a company should operate in market economy. Unfortunately, deviance behaviours are quite common. They can take many forms (many are actually legal) and have many results, but, in the end, they all adulterate the way Market works, making the supposed Market Economy in something else (and therefore making the assumption of the benefits it would bring less credible).

----------------------------------------
“Oh, that arrogant USA -- protecting their own interests...how dare they! They won't hamstring their economy with environmental rules based on junk science”

Junk science? Just because its conclusions are not favourable towards certain American economic lobbies?).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
“…give money to the Africans 'cause they demand it”

It is still the moral thing to do, to aid those in need. How the aid is done is another issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“, and they won't get rid of guns 'cause they think it might be good to have a population that can stand up to the government, should the need arise. “

Well, this is an internal American issue that only concerns Americans.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
”Analysis: 50 years of climate data, of which only 10 is anywhere near accurate, is a bit small on the global timeframe to make snap decisions about out impact on the planet. “

It would be better if we had more time, but we may not have the time to collect more info. As it is, we must consider that it exists a real possibility that, if we persist in doing nothing to change our current ways, the results may be catastrophic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
“ Global government. Yeah...nothing like busting on capitalism throughout this document, then turning to the G8 for global government. The G8 is an economic outfit for the discussion of trade arrangements. Oh...and it's a GREAT idea to have a one-world monolithic government (with no guns, high taxes, and self-serving bureaucrats) running everything. “

Quite possibly, but some would say that it is a GREAT idea not to have any governments (or the smallest, weakest governments possible). No economical rules to hamper the actions of corporations, (so that you end up with no consumer rights, no Social Security (just in case you needed it) and with self- serving corporations running everything).

(Continues)

[J. Maynard]

“Global recession and those poor laid-off workers. Take you skills, get together, and build your own company.”

Quite the utopic view here. Unfortunately this is not an option to many, especially outside America. Can you think everyone has entrepreneurial skills? Or simply have access to the means to do it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Oh, nd maybe we wouldn't have the unemployment problems if we kept our population size in check”

Over simplistic, there is much more to it that overpopulation. Besides the globalisation of markets (yes, it IS actually responsible for part of the unemployment problem) there are other factors as well, technological changes in production methods, for instance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

“Analysis: you're out of work due to greedy capitalists. Unlike the 19th century or the early part of this one, more capital was squarely in a few people's hands. Now a great number of people hold stock in companies. So are we all the villain here?

This is more an American reality than a global one. And also, who make the decisions in the Big Corporations? The little man? Nope.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe instead of looking for a daddy government to protect you, you should get off your asses and find a way to ue the system to your advantage.”

Why? You take for granted that people should want to live in such a system. Why wouldn’t they desire to have a measure of security in their lives?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“ Social justice and solidarity. Militarism is passe. Let's talk it out. (I'm all for that...but when they don't want to talk..?) It's all because of discrimination and dominance that war exists. I think that's an oversimplification. Mankind is a hunter/scavenger -- biologically speaking. We are hardwired for the notion of self-interest and competition.”

So, does this mean we should give up trying to fight our hardwired instincts? We are social and cultural creatures. Civilization is in itself an attempt to elevate the Human species above our baser instincts. If we give up fighting self-interest and greed (claming that they are natural and unfightable), why not give up all that stands between self-gratification and us?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Most of the countries that are unstable are due to a lack of democratic social history. Most have dicatators that have used political and religious ideologies to set themselves apart from the rest of the world (but I thought diversity was strength?). This is one reason why utopian ideals of peace rarely work.”

Of course. But why does democracy actually work in some places and not in others? In our history we can find capitalistic societies that were democracies, and those who weren’t. It is dangerously simplistic to assume that capitalism is in itself a deterrent to totalitarism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Trade unionism: all for it. But once again, there's a balance. In a capitalist system, there's only so far you can push your employer before they are no longer viable. At that point, you've cut your own throat. As for governments shutting them down. It's wrong.”

Yet there are those that desire nothing less, in the name of so called Neoliberal ideals.

(Continues)

[J. Maynard]

“Analysis: capitalism bad. It oppresses people. Well, talk to the 8 year old whose family is able to feed themselves or a better place to live. Most of them welcome capitalism. There's a lot of fear of mechanization here too; the global movements owe a lot to the Luddites and Saboteurs of the 19th Century. They were afraid of machine then...apparently, we still are.”

True, but we can also say the opposite. Talk to the 8 year old whose family have been laid off as a result of the opening of markets to global competition. Most of them dislike capitalism.

Yes, there is a lot of fear of change, and even more fear of the uncertainty that comes with living under Market Economy. To many this is not desirable, we might not agree with them, but it is not as if they haven’t any valid reasons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Neoliberalism causes trafficking and slavery of women and children. This is the biggest load of crap in this document. The majority of these people are fleeing TO neoliberal countries and are exploited by their own people, who rob them and enslave them. No 'capitalist' country I know of allows this sort of thing. When it is discovered, the people are freed and the miscreants arrested.”

Unfortunately it is not such a load of crap (just partially crappy ). You can equate woman slavery with forced prostitution. It is true that it is not legal, but it is all to frequent in the West. And you can argue that capitalism does create favourable conditions for it to arise, while not fighting it very efficiently.

And what about the conditions of living of many immigrants (specially illegal immigrants) in the West? I’ve seen many an appalling tale in mainstream TV (that cannot be accused of being against capitalism).

And what about asian sweatshops? They use child labour, and they have the connivance of many a Big Corporation operating in the West. In fact, some of these corporations use them extensively. Allowing them to successfully compete in the Western markets against other corporations that not resource to such methods.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“How about the enslaved diamond miners in Angola working for those noble socialist liberators...oh wait, that's blacks enslaving blacks and that doesn't happen. Never mind. “

A government is not socialist just because it says so; also you seem not to realize that a substantial part of the diamond mining is in the hands of the UNITA (“rebels”), not the MPLA (government). Not that the corruption scandals in the Angolan government (the recent one about oil, for instance) are any better.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Analysis: this shows the virulence of this group to capitalism. They will essentially make any connection, no mater how false, to the 'casino economy' and any evil they see in the world.

It is true that some people are not capable of logical analysis. On the other hand, this is also valid to the defenders of market economy. Some will not recognise there are problems; that their system is less then perfect. (And I don't think you are one of those ).

----------------------------------------------------------------------
“ Countries' debts as illegitimate (wrong, they agreed to the stipulations in their loan), unjust (I'll back that wholeheartedly...usury, anyone?), and fraudulent (questionable.) “

Well, the real issue is if they are unjust or not, isn’t it? If we think they are, then we can argue that their legitimacy is only a matter of being legally acceptable arrangements (but devoid of any moral legitimacy). As for fraudulent, since many of these loans are made by less then democratic governments, and many of the money actually ends being deviated from public funds and projects, and that IMF actually knew that these was a very probable possibility. One can argue that since the proposed reason given for a loan is not verified (and both parts knew or suspected it) we can speak of fraud.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Anaylsis: a bit heated and emotional, but some very good points here. I agree that the IMF should go ahead and forgive these loans. But these countries shouldn't just rush out and sign up for more...if they do, that's their own fault.”

Mostly true. Except that not all of these countries are democracies, and because of that, the people don’t have a saying in it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The common assets. The culture thing -- cultures act just like their individual ements, humans. They compete for dominance. The most successful are the ones that adapt and include elements from other societies.”

How would we define a successful culture? By its ability to suppress any other form of culture? Doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------
“As for the biodiversity thing...food free from genetic manipulation. Wouldn't that kind of adjustment to crops be encouraging biodiversity? Oh, wait...it's not NATURAL biodiversity. “

Personally, I think that only a small part of the people against transgenics crops are motivated by the desire to preserve natural variety. Many are just concerned about how safe these products are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
“Analysis: Luddite-like fears of bioengineering. Question: what do you get when you put a gene splice from a firefly into the genetic structure of corn? Answer: corn.”

Why? It may look like corn (or not), it may taste as corn (or not), but there will be a difference (that’s the purpose, isn’t it?) The real issue is, how safe it is to human consumption?

Like it or not there are many who are not assured about it’s safety. I’ve heard reputable scientists claming that the corporations responsible for the creation and merchandising of transgenics haven’t made an attempt to seriously investigate this issue before they put their products on the market. Call it the “Tobacco Syndrome” if you will. People want to be assured about these things, and previous attitudes from certain corporations in the past (like sloppy research (because it is expensive and not profitable); or the denial of evidence suggesting tobacco to be dangerous; or worse, the active attempt to hide or adulterate damaging evidence) have made them suspicious.

That the US government wants to deny the Europeans the right of choosing not to eat Trangenics doesn’t help neither. Iif the Europeans don’t want transgenics being sold in their countries is their right to chose this approach. But worse, even if Europeans are willing to accept these products to be sold in their countries, with the proper identification as transgenic products, the US are not willing to do so (why? Because it is afraid that their bad reputation as unsafe products may affect their sales). What the US defend here is the denial of the consumer rights to the Europeans, so that the consumer don’t have a way to know what he is eating.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“ The WTO and the commodification of everything. This is Marx, pure and simple. “

Is it? If you consider that in free market, everything are goods, and that what matters is how supply and demand mechanics work to attain the optimum equilibrium, you are just implying these very statement.

------------------------------------------------------------------
“Analysis: fear of a dehumanization of people”

And this is a real problem.

---------------------------------------------------------
“. Final points: I agree with most of them, save the Tobin Tax crap. Just what I need, the government stealing more money from me so it can do nothing for me with it. As for the self-determination part -- you won't get that with an overarching world authority.”

I think that the extinction of tax havens is a more important issue here. They significantly adulterate the way Market Economy work, creating a situation of unfair competition.
The Tobin tax does have more than just one reason. One of the real problems of modern economies is the effect of high- finance speculation on the global markets. The Tobin tax would have a small effect on it, but would be a sign of the desire to change the status quo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
”What we have here is the same socialist humanism of the 19th Century. There's a few additions here and there, but they are running on a 100+ year old platform that is not entirely compatible with the modern ay issues they are trying to tackle. There are some huge assumptions about capitalism that are incorrect. There are some massive leaps of logic to connect points they are concerned with. “

And what about Market Economy? It actually goes back to the late XVIII century (Adam Smith and all that) what we really have here is two, old, poorly adjusted systems. Not just one.

You say there’re huge assumptions about capitalism that are incorrect. True, but you can find many of the most erroneous assumptions (about capitalism) being made by those that defend Market Economy. Perhaps one of the most grievous is the assumption it is a “natural system”, capable of correcting itself without external interference.

[J. Maynard]

--------------------------------------------------------------
“My main problems with this group are their lack of real examination of the issues and the lack of real 'alternate social system' here that they are proposing -- merely the same ephemeral utopian pipedreams that enslaved the Soviet people for 70 years. We saw how successful that was; now we're being offered the same carrot they were.”

It is a pity, that many of the proposals (if we can consider them that) are far from realistic. Yet that doesn’t make capitalism a perfect system neither, nor makes many of their objections unfounded.

[Lightcastle]

To J Maynard.

Brilliantly put. That was a masterful reply. Only a couple of things I would add.

The whole "we are wired for competition because we are hunter-gatherers" thing: In fact, it is also fairly obvious that we are also wired for social interaction and altruism. Society and civilization isn't just about rising above our instincts, it is part and parcel of our instincts.

Capitalism and Democracy. You make a point people forget all too often. There is no reason to think that these two things go hand in hand. They have very little to do with one another, yet we constantly hear about "Free Markets and Free Society" as if they are one and the same. (The market: Good way to run lots of economic issues, bad way to run a society.)

I've got to ask a question, though. Have you read any John Ralston Saul?

LC

[qerlin]

We are more that hunter gathers...to be exact, our niche would be that of scavenger-predator -- which requires intense sense of competition. We are, however, badly equipped, physically for the fray -- other than endurance, where humans shine. Both our niche and our limitations necessitate coordination between humans for survival.

Society is an extension of our survival strategies, and as such carries the same habits and drives that we do -- competition for resources, space, and hegemony. Atruism theorists suggest that this phenomenon exists due to a creature's ability to sacrifice itself to continue the genetic heretige -- be it a child or close relative. Soceital ahtruism comes from the idea that another human is close enough to you to be, metaphorically, family -- we are alike because we are of the same color, or nation, or linguistic grouping, etc... The idea that civilization is rising above our instincts is comforting and high-sounding, but not necessarily accurate.

As for the idea that "I can live my life with just the necessities and a few items of comfort..." Well so can I -- and I do -- but any system that requires people give up materialism hampers their pursuit of happiness; might not be my way or your way, but they should be allowed to aquire if they want.

Some responses to J.T. (forgive me if I'm a little off here, man; I've got to go through all this stuff to get to it. Ain't 10,000 character limits a bitch?) to follow.