Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: World at War

  1. #71
    Dochter
    Guest Dochter's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    You are asserting that there is a fundamental difference in how groups of people interact as a result of what are commonly but erroneously considered western ideas or philosophy. That is false.

    While I didn't read your definition of capitalism, it also is false to say that people didn't interact in a capitalistic manner prior to 500 years ago.

    Like I said, inserting the caveat that "of course things were rough back then to" does not mean that your point isn't still now is worse than them. Therefore it wasn't a strawman but your underlying premise that I was arguing against.

  2. #72
    Registered Member sin_dios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    26


    Yes | No

    Default

    you need to

    1) read my defintion of capitalism in the thread.

    2) find out about the origins of crafts and the european market place, the transition from feudalism to capitlism in europe. you are out on a limb with your assertion that capitalist relations were common befor 500 years ago, unless you mean only in small part, even in europe it was the guild system,dude. go look in the encylopedia under capitlism. if the word has meaning, it couldnt havd existed on large scale in PRE-CAPITALIST times.

    3) i m not asserting western philosophy is behind this, even if it affects it, just that the new imperilaism was born in europe. that doesnt mean its not drawn on international sources, or that its less harsh in than say the ancient chinese empire, only that its more out of control and harder to defeat, much less limited in its means and need for horror, and far more penetrating into cultures and sociteis.
    .
    but murder and exploitaion are NOT invented in europe.

    4) im not saying "of coure things were rough then too".thats the flip side of your thinking, using your logic.
    i am saying things were different everywhere then, differentiated .
    and social institutions had some sway in many places.

    i AM saying now things are not differentiated, that they are more homogenous and predictable, functioning under the overwhelming logic of a system that covers vast distances and renders them more meaningless. i am saying when certain quantitive limits are reached, a QUALiTATIVE change happens.

    everyone agress that humane, social,rational, spiritual potentialties exist alongside dark, expolitative,murderous, dominating anti-social potentialties inside all people.
    but i have an explanation as to why 1 of these modes has come to more universally dominate the other, and you do not.

    and this last thing is my own personal belief,no one has to share it,
    but i think the record shows people are just a bit more of the former than the latter, or else rulers wouldnt have to constantly lie to the people, or hide the facts. they could just tell the truth .

    it seems that after all thats happened far more effort has to put into stunting peoples capacities than in allowing them to flower.
    Last edited by sin_dios; 3rd June 04 at 06:41 PM.

  3. #73
    Registered Member sin_dios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    26


    Yes | No

    Default

    kalibloke,
    again i want to offer my views as just 1 of many ways to get to some broad grip on why things are this way. things cannot be reduced to what i present here.
    its meant to be practical.

    for example, the vast majority of enviromental degradation is cause by a couple hundred multinational corporations. not individuals bad habits.

    there fore the enviorenmental crisis is not so complicated, but simple.

    so why is it so hard to deliver a couple hundred letters to these adresses saying youre shut down until you can be envirnmentally friendly, and you also must fix what youve done?
    because of a profit driven system who's elites are untouchable, and on who's activities much of our daily industrial life depends.it has a logic to it.

    so that goes for the repatriation you mentioned, it will never happen. i agree with you that it should.
    normally though the idea is to brutally level the struggling people and then extend a donut which in that context will seem like immense humantarian aid, and then rebuild the place on the dominter's terms. you'll never see that kind of analyses much in the media or school in our countries because these institutions are for profit and owned by large companies.

    for instance in the usa in the 20's theere were hundereds of large independent daily newspapers. there was also a huge labor,women's and revolutionary movement, populist movemnts, farmers movements etc.
    now there are only a handful of giant corporations that own most of the media in the industrialized west. this stuff has to be dug up in countries like ours(unles youre poor or black-youre more likely know the score) but for most of the world, people know the world order is enforced by the world powers, that they dont have a problem with it being this way.

  4. #74
    Senior Member Freddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,571


    Yes | No

    Default

    Originally posted by sin_dios
    .
    ...but murder and exploitaion are NOT invented in europe.
    I dont know how you can say that. Murder and exploitation existed practically all over the world. I do not beleive there is one singular origin of it.
    Ghost of Charles Dickens

  5. #75
    Registered Member sin_dios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    26


    Yes | No

    Default

    ?????????????????
    read the quote.
    who are you arguing with man?

  6. #76
    Registered Member sin_dios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    26


    Yes | No

    Default

    the word ...NOT...

  7. #77
    DJeter1234
    Guest DJeter1234's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    sigh, one more time into the breech...

    "the biggest bullshit was to then act like its my job to blueprint a society for the whole world to live in, to bulid an EDEN FOR YOU (im talking to djeter here) and then blame me for failing to produce this working utopia option for you."

    no, i just want an idea of how you plan to take back the world from capitalism, seeing that is a very effective system. Without a way to get there, then any ideal (and seeing as it has not yet been realized, it is an ideal) is useless.

    "all i was talking about was broad trends in history which go an incredibly long way toward explaining why the people who won, the world powers and priveleged, require the world stays poor and wartorn. i was purposefully avoiding trying to get too specific in circumscribed times and places so as to stay broadly relevent, but am then chastised for not providing working examples of ....what? "

    it requires that the world stays poor reletive to the rich, but it is not a zero sum game.

    "the vaugeness and assumptions are out of hand. there are many institutons in every society that dont produce nuclear weapons, war, waged slavery or suburban sprawl, they are too many to be listed , CAUSE THEY ARE THE MAJORITY. is that what you meant?
    we can talk about them if anyone wants to focus on a specific context."

    Nuclear weapons aren't inherently bad (and even if they were, now that we have them they will never go away), the US no longer has waged slavery, and suburban sprawl is not necesarily bad, at least to an extent. War is bad, but capitalism /= war

    "different things drive different empires, i think its solidly established capitlism must grow or die, find new markets or perish, and it needs primitive acumlation.
    the engine of capitalim needs no specific players and doesnt only bow to the personal desires of one tyrant like in ancient empires. it runs on its own,on an abstraction,
    making those it conquers dependent. moreover, former empires did not all destroy the societies they captured, in fact the largest and most succesful gave them relative autonomy as long as they paid their dues."

    i would mantain that the countries supposably under the US's emprie today are given MUCH more autonomy than almost in any other "empire" i can think of. Which ones are you referring to?

    "a huge amount of human history didnt have the state, and much more importantly thare has been a huge tension between peoples asserting themselves based on democracy or kinship (read noncapitalist relations) against states. from the medieval town fighting against lords and kings, to (yes) the indegenous people' s of the world(not all, but most of whom had - among their members- internally democratic and egalitarian societies)..."

    I would say this is the check to capitalism running our of controll. But I fail to see how it condemns capitalism

    "the 20th century opened with a brutal imperilist war where in an attempt to dump their problems of overproduction on a new market, the us elite killed 4 million philpinos in their power grab form the dwindling spanish elite (spanish american war)."

    no one is defending this sort of overt imperialism. But that doesn't mean that capitalist societies are bad. It is a fact that capitalist societies are sucesfull and flourish, which is why the West has so much power. I do not beleive that the predominant sucesses of capitalism require exploitation. This might be the basis for our disagreement.

    "the world must remain wartorn to prevent any kind of rational discourse form taking shape. because emost people won't choose ecocide, poverty and suffering for themselves, it must be chosen for them"

    Again, I beleive that jsut because teh world is wartorn and capitalism is working does nto mean that capitalism si working because the world is war-torn. Moreover, I don't see how you plan to dissolve captialism and how dissolving capitalism will somehow fix this problem. I firmly believe that our policies should be towards giving people/countries the ability to improve themselves

    "for example, the vast majority of enviromental degradation is cause by a couple hundred multinational corporations. not individuals bad habits."

    and the habits of the companies are caused by the individual bad habits of buying cheap and ignoring the consequence.

  8. #78
    DJeter1234
    Guest DJeter1234's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    ok, screw point by point. Here's my issues:

    1. How does rejection ro at least regulation of large corporations necesarily require the abolition of what you term public and private property, which have existed long before even your definition of captialism

    2. How do you deal with all the people who want to live in the US and have our quality of life and ability for self-beterment? I would contend that this attempt at emulation and participation causes more of the changes you have mentioned than military coersion

    3. Most importantly, how can this world view realistically accomplish it's goals? Again, capitlaism has been proven to work and to work well. How can a nation just throw off captialist endevours and return to some sort of quasi-communal society where groups and people do not disagree on what is whose property? What will be the nature of this government that prohibits larger corperations and how will it compete with countries that do not?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
◮ Top