Capitalist ethos

[Delbert]

Well, there's a lot of responses above, I'm not sure where to start, so I'll just refer you to or repeat what I've said previously. Although I think I need to correct one of my comments whereby I used employee instead of employer (I'd just partaken liquid libation!), but I think you got the message.

 

I think it's clear that you know my position and don't agree with it, which is fair enough. So I think it's best if we leave it at that because we could perhaps go on until the next millennium!

 

P.S. Perhaps you might be interested in the fact that many years ago I was a union rep, and experienced things from a view divergent from the one I have now. If anything, that experience formed my view.

[Tridimity]

Yes, let's agree to disagree, our opinions are irreconcilable.

[Delbert]

Yes, let's agree to disagree, our opinions are irreconcilable.

I think contrary views or opinions of others always are.

[Tridimity]

I think contrary views or opinions of others always are.

 

I think on most occasions it is possible to find common ground. However, we seem to have descended into an argument based on extremes, each as relentless as the other, with your sympathies aligning almost exclusively with the employer's viewpoint and my sympathies aligning almost exclusively with the employee's viewpoint. As such, the discussion has stopped being constructive.

[ralfy]

One can also consider the ff:

 

"The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism"

 

http://monthlyreview.org/1998/07/01/the-agrarian-origins-of-capitalism

 

That is, we start with land commonly used by inhabitants to produce food for themselves until more of it is enclosed by armed people and declared as private property (hence, enclosures). Inhabitants who are allowed to produce food by the new land owners must give up all of their produce, and are instead paid in the form of scrip, which inhabitants may use to buy food sold by the same land owners in markets.

 

From there, we add the use of technology to increase production (with workers always receiving less than the value of what they produce so that capitalists, those who own the means of production, will profit), over-production (where more goods are produced than necessary as capitalists compete with each other and expand the market), and credit and financial speculation (scrip replaced by legal tender, lenders charging interest or requiring a return on investment), over-consumption (the rise and growth of a middle class from which capitalists will profit), etc.

 

The result is what we saw along the span of the last six decades or so: incredible concentrations of wealth in the form of credit concentrated among a very small group of people, a population boom followed by a growing global middle class, and significant levels of environmental damage coupled with global warming due to heavy reliance on fossil fuels for manufacturing and food production.

 

From there, one may include the threat of a resource crunch (including peak oil) and chronic economic crises due to increasing amounts of credit that can only be propped up through increasing use of resources.

[Delbert]

That is, we start with land commonly used by inhabitants to produce food for themselves until more of it is enclosed by armed people and declared as private property (hence, enclosures).

So what's new? Go down to your local pond and I think it's right to say just about every animal floating, swimming or walking on land does something similar - if not exactly the same. Securing an area or territory and consequently securing sufficient food for them and any siblings. The swan on my local river spent nearly all day chasing off others when he and the pen were nesting. He patrols what must be about 3/4 of a mile of river - it appears he considers he owns it.

 

You're dealing with basic human nature - and doubtless the nature of just about every other creature. That is, securing protection, availability of food and shelter.

 

You pitch you tent and will doubtless forcibly prevent others from either occupying it or pulling it down so they can pitch theirs on your patch.

 

From there, we add the use of technology to increase production (with workers always receiving less than the value of what they produce so that capitalists, those who own the means of production, will profit), over-production (where more goods are produced than necessary as capitalists compete with each other and expand the market), and credit and financial speculation (scrip replaced by legal tender, lenders charging interest or requiring a return on investment), over-consumption (the rise and growth of a middle class from which capitalists will profit), etc.

 

Where do we start?

 

Workers receiving less? That's an opinion - we always think we're worth more. Although in contrast, some say we rise to our own level of incompetence, which is probably nearer the truth!

 

More goods? That's counter to profit, too much of something lowers the price.

 

Lenders charging interest? Would you lend money for nothing?

 

Over consumption? Now that's a strange one; to the best of my knowledge people aren't forced to consume, buy or do any such thing.

 

Frankly, I just don't understand this subject at all. If one doesn't like something then don't do it, buy it or get involved with it at all. If one doesn't like one's job or the wages it pays, then politely inform your employer that you're leaving. If one doesn't like the government in power then vote accordingly next time.

 

The message I get from this subject is state control. Mainly the state control of wages, forcing employers to pay what others consider 'right'. Unfortunately that appears contrary to democracy. Contrary because of the simple fact that following an election another party may well decide to throw all said wonderful 'rights' out of the window! But if one takes the view such things should be inviolate, then that is hogtieing future governments and nothing more than a masked unelected dictatorship.

[ralfy]

So what's new? Go down to your local pond and I think it's right to say just about every animal floating, swimming or walking on land does something similar - if not exactly the same. Securing an area or territory and consequently securing sufficient food for them and any siblings. The swan on my local river spent nearly all day chasing off others when he and the pen were nesting. He patrols what must be about 3/4 of a mile of river - it appears he considers he owns it.

No, that's not the same, unless "every animal" you are referring to has a deed or similar document and courts to back legal claims.

 

You're dealing with basic human nature - and doubtless the nature of just about every other creature. That is, securing protection, availability of food and shelter.

No, that's not "basic human nature," as enclosures, the use of scrip, etc., appeared later. Also, "every other creature" does not employ processes such as wages and exchange markets. And the purpose is not to secure "protection, availability of food and shelter." Read my previous message carefully.

 

You pitch you tent and will doubtless forcibly prevent others from either occupying it or pulling it down so they can pitch theirs on your patch.

No, it's not the same as pitching a tent for painfully obvious reasons, unless you are referring to tents that have areas that take up several hectares.

 

Where do we start?

 

Workers receiving less? That's an opinion - we always think we're worth more. Although in contrast, some say we rise to our own level of incompetence, which is probably nearer the truth!

No, it's not a matter of workers receiving less or more, or even incompetence. Read my previous post carefully.

 

More goods? That's counter to profit, too much of something lowers the price.

No, it's the opposite. Fixed costs are spread across more goods produced, leading to lower cost per unit.

 

Lenders charging interest? Would you lend money for nothing?

That's not the point. Read my previous message carefully.

 

Over consumption? Now that's a strange one; to the best of my knowledge people aren't forced to consume, buy or do any such thing.

Actually, they are, and have been for decades. Terms such as "fads," "planned obsolescence," and "advertising" come into play.

 

And it works both ways: given competition companies have to sell more each time. Hence, lots of calls from people offering more credit cards, investments in real estate, etc.

 

Frankly, I just don't understand this subject at all. If one doesn't like something then don't do it, buy it or get involved with it at all. If one doesn't like one's job or the wages it pays, then politely inform your employer that you're leaving. If one doesn't like the government in power then vote accordingly next time.

Your point isn't helpful, because you will end up buying something else, taking on another job and receiving wages, looking for another employer, or replacing one government with another. You are still in the same capitalism system.

 

Are you talking about another system?

 

The message I get from this subject is state control. Mainly the state control of wages, forcing employers to pay what others consider 'right'. Unfortunately that appears contrary to democracy. Contrary because of the simple fact that following an election another party may well decide to throw all said wonderful 'rights' out of the window! But if one takes the view such things should be inviolate, then that is hogtieing future governments and nothing more than a masked unelected dictatorship.

Actually, no, because the system is still the same, whether it's state or free market capitalism.

 

Also, not just state control but control by capitalists runs "contrary to democracy," unless you actually believe the majority of people can force a financial elite to work in its favor.

 

Finally, government likely works for Big Business and not the other way round, especially given control of the global economy by a financial elite:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

[Delbert]

In general, your answers seem to infer, or in fact state, that I've not read your previous comments; well, that's a coincidence because from my perspective it seems you've not read mine! So were quits on that point. Anyway, other that simply saying I disagree with all your answers, I'm not going through them individually - or any one of them.

 

It's clear to me there is some sort of grudge against what you call capitalism. But this system you call capitalism gives you the absolute freedom to pursue any work, job, profession, business or virtually any activity you wish. Within the limits of necessary fiscal rules to prevent inflicting harm to others, you can choose to take, refuse or do just about anything you like.

 

You speak of some sort of rule about wages, you even mention slavery! I'm sorry, but you are perfectly free and able to refuse or accept to what you refer. And what you call a capitalist system is so far from slavery as to be billions of miles out of range of a space telescope. You clearly don't like what you seem to imply as those nasty employers and what they are offering. If so, then experience it from the other side and start your own business - you are perfectly free to do that and to experience it from the contrary position. You can start small, say, open a market stall. Or start a photography business from your bedroom, as I believe a well known multimillionaire did - think he's now been ennobled.

 

I'm sorry, I'll be perfectly frank, I feel very sad for you that you take such a derogatory view about a free society. The conclusion being that the 'system' has 'got it in' for society or particular members of society. To repeat, you are free to associate and pursue whatever path you wish (within the limits of not harming others I mentioned above). The world is your lobster, as someone once said, what more could you ask for?

Edited November 4, 2013 by Delbert

[ralfy]

In general, your answers seem to infer, or in fact state, that I've not read your previous comments; well, that's a coincidence because from my perspective it seems you've not read mine! So were quits on that point. Anyway, other that simply saying I disagree with all your answers, I'm not going through them individually - or any one of them.

 

It's clear to me there is some sort of grudge against what you call capitalism. But this system you call capitalism gives you the absolute freedom to pursue any work, job, profession, business or virtually any activity you wish. Within the limits of necessary fiscal rules to prevent inflicting harm to others, you can choose to take, refuse or do just about anything you like.

 

You speak of some sort of rule about wages, you even mention slavery! I'm sorry, but you are perfectly free and able to refuse or accept to what you refer. And what you call a capitalist system is so far from slavery as to be billions of miles out of range of a space telescope. You clearly don't like what you seem to imply as those nasty employers and what they are offering. If so, then experience it from the other side and start your own business - you are perfectly free to do that and to experience it from the contrary position. You can start small, say, open a market stall. Or start a photography business from your bedroom, as I believe a well known multimillionaire did - think he's now been ennobled.

 

I'm sorry, I'll be perfectly frank, I feel very sad for you that you take such a derogatory view about a free society. The conclusion being that the 'system' has 'got it in' for society or particular members of society. To repeat, you are free to associate and pursue whatever path you wish (within the limits of not harming others I mentioned above). The world is your lobster, as someone once said, what more could you ask for?

 

My points have nothing to do with a grudge but with simple facts about the matter. You will find them in my first post:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775466

 

and my counter to your arguments:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775607

[Delbert]

That is, we start with land commonly used by inhabitants to produce food for themselves until more of it is enclosed by armed people and declared as private property (hence, enclosures). Inhabitants who are allowed to produce food by the new land owners must give up all of their produce, and are instead paid in the form of scrip, which inhabitants may use to buy food sold by the same land owners in markets.

"enclosed by armed people". Unfortunately we go back to human nature (which I think you refuted), if you've got something, there'll will be someone else that'll want to take it from you - just like all the other creatures experience that inhibiting this world of ours. And you'll end up using force or even bear arms to defend whatever you value, else it will be taken from you - just like the other creatures do that inhabit this world of ours. In a civilized society we solicit the police and armed forces to do all that for us.

 

For example: will you be giving up your current pitch on the basis that the land, area, space or whatever it occupies was almost certainly originally obtained by force?

 

You then appear to go on and extend it into todays world of technology, big corporations and whatnot. For starters, perhaps you might like to offer a scenario whereby in our high density conglomerations, without some sort of well organised arrangement or conglomeration that you appear to criticise, you can get food on the table. That's not to mention all the other things the populous consider basic requirements.

 

I'm just thinking about how many eggs are laid, packed, transported, sold in shops every day here in the UK? Perhaps 60 million? What sort of organisation do we need to achieve that? And that's just eggs.

 

It seems to me we have created a requirement for what you seem to infer is something that needs to change or be done away with.

 

I'm sorry, but an alternative not involving large organisations can only be either absolute state control or chaos. And I think we all know about state control. What do one US president say: the nine most dangerous words in the English language. I'll leave you to Google those. And as for chaos...

 

You mention other things like profit sometimes driving over production. Well, I agree, it can happen, but you've not mentioned that there is an element of overconsumption to go with it - it's not just one sided. Go down your local authority dump and you'll see the useful things that get thrown away. And as for profit I think you'll find people don't do things for nothing. The complicated parts for this computer I'm typing this on were made for profit (yes, I prefer to assemble with the parts I choose). And to out do the opposition they'll doubtless shortly produce a faster and more complex parts - and so on.

 

I'll agree that there are imperfections, and possibly unfairness - there are numerous - nay, countless - things I consider unfair. But it is absolutely clear to me that anything else would be grossly and disastrously unfair. Perhaps it's some sort of altruistic community is viewed as the alternative. Well, it might start off with that ideal, but frictions and disagreements will very soon surface - if not after the first ten minutes! And as for who does what, in the fullness of time that may well end up in armed conflict!

[ralfy]

It is good to see you addressing my points. This is much better than referring to a "grudge" or some other off-topic argument.

 

"enclosed by armed people". Unfortunately we go back to human nature (which I think you refuted), if you've got something, there'll will be someone else that'll want to take it from you - just like all the other creatures experience that inhibiting this world of ours. And you'll end up using force or even bear arms to defend whatever you value, else it will be taken from you - just like the other creatures do that inhabit this world of ours. In a civilized society we solicit the police and armed forces to do all that for us.

The purpose of enclosure was not to protect land but to take control of land owned by no one. I think the problem is that you focused on the idea of "armed people" and not the act of enclosures.

 

Also, the use of force in this case was employed not to "defend whatever you value" but to take control of what others value.

 

I think you should read the article carefully before commenting further.

 

For example: will you be giving up your current pitch on the basis that the land, area, space or whatever it occupies was almost certainly originally obtained by force?

There was no "current pitch." Land was not owned by anyone. Again, read the article carefully and my previous posts.

 

You then appear to go on and extend it into todays world of technology, big corporations and whatnot. For starters, perhaps you might like to offer a scenario whereby in our high density conglomerations, without some sort of well organised arrangement or conglomeration that you appear to criticise, you can get food on the table. That's not to mention all the other things the populous consider basic requirements.

This is painfully obvious, unless you intend to prove that various means of productions are not private property, or that "democracy" can counter "high density conglomerations." I think one has to be incredibly naive to do both.

 

I'm just thinking about how many eggs are laid, packed, transported, sold in shops every day here in the UK? Perhaps 60 million? What sort of organisation do we need to achieve that? And that's just eggs.

No questions about that. In fact, the whole system is a gigantic set of machines requiring incredible amounts of energy and resources to keep going. And the amount of credit involved is hundreds of times larger. This explains the current predicaments of a permanent economic crisis, peak oil, and environmental damage coupled with global warming.

 

It seems to me we have created a requirement for what you seem to infer is something that needs to change or be done away with.

We will not be able to stop it. The three predicaments mentioned will. In fact, we are now seeing the signs of that.

 

I'm sorry, but an alternative not involving large organisations can only be either absolute state control or chaos. And I think we all know about state control. What do one US president say: the nine most dangerous words in the English language. I'll leave you to Google those. And as for chaos...

I was not offering an alternative, and I don't think there ever will be one.

 

By the way, state control or state capitalism has the same problems as free market capitalism. The latter, though, leads to more chaos due to deregulation. Hence, we have a global unregulated derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars. Try to figure out how much resources will be needed to back that credit.

 

You mention other things like profit sometimes driving over production. Well, I agree, it can happen, but you've not mentioned that there is an element of overconsumption to go with it - it's not just one sided. Go down your local authority dump and you'll see the useful things that get thrown away. And as for profit I think you'll find people don't do things for nothing. The complicated parts for this computer I'm typing this on were made for profit (yes, I prefer to assemble with the parts I choose). And to out do the opposition they'll doubtless shortly produce a faster and more complex parts - and so on.

Actually, one feeds on the other. Put simply, "useful things" are thrown away so that consumers will buy new "useful things," and that means more profits for businesses.

 

Welcome to capitalism.

 

I'll agree that there are imperfections, and possibly unfairness - there are numerous - nay, countless - things I consider unfair. But it is absolutely clear to me that anything else would be grossly and disastrously unfair. Perhaps it's some sort of altruistic community is viewed as the alternative. Well, it might start off with that ideal, but frictions and disagreements will very soon surface - if not after the first ten minutes! And as for who does what, in the fullness of time that may well end up in armed conflict!

I wasn't referring to imperfections, unfairness, or even alternatives, but to internal flaws in capitalism. As I have shown in my posts, capitalism originated from violence and employs it through the law, leads to over-production, over-consumption, and environmental damage, and creates benefits that lead to more problems (e.g., increased food production through the Green Revolution and manufacture of medicine, etc., leading to significant improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality drops, but also a population boom and a bio-capacity that can now barely sustain not just a growing human population but a growing global middle class, with resource and energy requirements that are much higher).

 

I think you mistakenly thought that I was an anti-capitalist and that I want the system removed. Actually, I am not anti-capitalist, and I did not propose such. My argument is that because of internal flaws in capitalism and its effects, the global capitalist economy will not last. I gave an explanation in my first post in this thread, which you will find here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/#entry773781

 

All I did after that was give the origins of such a system, which you will find here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79287-capitalist-ethos/page-2#entry775466

[Delbert]

The purpose of enclosure was not to protect land but to take control of land owned by no one. I think the problem is that you focused on the idea of "armed people" and not the act of enclosures.

 

We need to grow crops so we secure and control some land upon which to grow them. As I was trying to convey, if we didn't take measures to secure whatever, others would take the crops, trash the land or anything else they felt so inclined to do. And if you don't believe such can happen, just recall recent and current events of disorder. I just don't know what you're trying to say, other than confusing or viewing a normal necessary civilised state of affairs to be some sort of Orwellian oppression.

 

I'm not going to offer answers to the rest because for me they just seem to keep batting on about how awful and oppressive things are. From which I get the impression that some sort of imposed set of rules to make things fair is required, like the wage business mentioned previously. Even to the point that a business that didn't offer what you deem as a fair wage shouldn't be in operation - how oppressive is that? And doubtless, wages wouldn't be the only item on the agenda. Well, that would require rules, lots of rules. In other words the heavy hand of state control. Or to put not too fine a point on it, bordering on communism.

 

In contrast I suggest you're living in a free society, free to do and pursue what path you like within the limits of the necessary rules of consideration for others. I'd go further, it appears there may be a slight titchier of envy for organisations or others that have been, what could be described as, successful.

[EdEarl]

As time moves on, robots will assure safety and minimize work needed for survival, at least for the wealthy. Eventually, robots will be capable of reproducing themselves using factories and natural resources, and in time some robots will be capable of reproducing themselves without the need for a factory; although, reproducing robots may need to make foundries and machine tools to help with reproduction. The manner of reproduction is less important than the consequences.

 

Eventually a wealthy naturalist will give instructions to a reproducing robot to care for all of nature. Similarly, a wealthy humanist will give instructions to a reproducing robot to care for everyone. Afterward, the earth will care for nature including humanity.

[ralfy]

We need to grow crops so we secure and control some land upon which to grow them. As I was trying to convey, if we didn't take measures to secure whatever, others would take the crops, trash the land or anything else they felt so inclined to do. And if you don't believe such can happen, just recall recent and current events of disorder. I just don't know what you're trying to say, other than confusing or viewing a normal necessary civilised state of affairs to be some sort of Orwellian oppression.

Again, you did not read the article. Enclosures took place during the late Middle Ages not to "secure and control" land to grow crops but to take control of land that was used by peasants to grow crops. The armed men who formed enclosures did not grow crops. Rather, they declared that they now owned the land and that peasants who used to grow in commonly owned land now had to work for them.

 

That is the origin of "normal, necessary, civilized state of affairs." It's not "Orwellian oppression" but the use of violence to attain ownership followed by legitimizing that ownership.

 

I'm not going to offer answers to the rest because for me they just seem to keep batting on about how awful and oppressive things are. From which I get the impression that some sort of imposed set of rules to make things fair is required, like the wage business mentioned previously. Even to the point that a business that didn't offer what you deem as a fair wage shouldn't be in operation - how oppressive is that? And doubtless, wages wouldn't be the only item on the agenda. Well, that would require rules, lots of rules. In other words the heavy hand of state control. Or to put not too fine a point on it, bordering on communism.

The "set of rules" were "imposed" not "to make things fair" but to force peasants to work for armed men. That is the origin of private property as part of capitalism.

 

I never referred to a fair wage, rules, or even state control. What I said is that capitalism, whether state or free market, eventually leads to over-production, over-consumption, greater increase in credit, pollution, and population. And with a twenty-fold increase in armaments production, the development of nuclear weapons, and all sorts of false flags employed to attack other countries over oil and other resources, do not expect the absence of oppression.

 

In contrast I suggest you're living in a free society, free to do and pursue what path you like within the limits of the necessary rules of consideration for others. I'd go further, it appears there may be a slight titchier of envy for organisations or others that have been, what could be described as, successful.

That freedom takes the form of a middle class lifestyle, in turn made possible through the very conditions that will not allow it to continue. Read my first message in this thread for details.

As time moves on, robots will assure safety and minimize work needed for survival, at least for the wealthy. Eventually, robots will be capable of reproducing themselves using factories and natural resources, and in time some robots will be capable of reproducing themselves without the need for a factory; although, reproducing robots may need to make foundries and machine tools to help with reproduction. The manner of reproduction is less important than the consequences.

I think the second clause, which refers to the wealthy, is critical. The catch is that the wealthy attain their status ironically by more profits or greater returns on investment, and that ultimately involves producing more goods and services and selling them to the non-wealthy.

 

Also, robots, like human beings and various machines, are affected by physical laws that limit availability of resources and energy. More details can be found in my first message in this thread.

 

Eventually a wealthy naturalist will give instructions to a reproducing robot to care for all of nature. Similarly, a wealthy humanist will give instructions to a reproducing robot to care for everyone. Afterward, the earth will care for nature including humanity.

Unfortunately, this requires extensive availability of resources and energy, and something that cannot be achieved given a "capitalist ethos."

[Delbert]

Again, you did not read the article. Enclosures took place during the late Middle Ages not to "secure and control" land to grow crops but to take control of land that was used by peasants to grow crops. The armed men who formed enclosures did not grow crops. Rather, they declared that they now owned the land and that peasants who used to grow in commonly owned land now had to work for them.

I just don't know where you're living, but such doesn't happen anywhere near me. I'm sorry, but it seems you're diving into hyperbole.

 

That is the origin of "normal, necessary, civilized state of affairs." It's not "Orwellian oppression" but the use of violence to attain ownership followed by legitimizing that ownership.

 

Again, where on earth are you living? Although if you want to go back far enough, and as said previously, all land at some point way back in history was probably secured by force - which means your abode. The trouble is it's a result of human nature being what it is (which you appear to disagree with), some sort of forced security needs to be applied - after all, I presume you find the need to lock your door when leaving your abode like we all do. Not forgetting anything else, which unless chained are bolted down will almost certainly disappear in short order. But if you're are identifying that as some sort of basis for your argument, then I'm sorry, because if so, your argument is just ridiculous.

 

The "set of rules" were "imposed" not "to make things fair" but to force peasants to work for armed men. That is the origin of private property as part of capitalism.

As said, that may well have been the origin long ago, but is hardly relevant today - nay, totally irrelevant today. I'm sorry once more, but you're just going into hyperbole again.

 

And as said, your abode, or the area it's standing on, was doubtless originally obtained long ago by the method you indicate, so I presume you'll be surrendering it and handing it over to some better good.

[EdEarl]

 

Eventually a wealthy naturalist will give instructions to a reproducing robot to care for all of nature. Similarly, a wealthy humanist will give instructions to a reproducing robot to care for everyone. Afterward, the earth will care for nature including humanity.

 

Unfortunately, this requires extensive availability of resources and energy, and something that cannot be achieved given a "capitalist ethos."

 

Fortunately, sun and wind provide sufficient energy, the ocean is not claimed by anyone, and the ocean and the ocean floor have sufficient resources, regardless of how much land is owned by capitalists. People can live on floating farms near the equator, where there are no violent storms. The potential for livable surface is vast.

[Delbert]

Little missive for ralfy.

 

This guy's done it against all what you call that nasty and oppressive capitalism:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24801980

[GiantEvil]

Totalitarian corporatocracy is no longer needed for capitalist ventures.

I give you Kickstarter; http://www.kickstarter.com/

 

Not that the current system doesn't sometimes produce the generally beneficial;

[ralfy]

I just don't know where you're living, but such doesn't happen anywhere near me. I'm sorry, but it seems you're diving into hyperbole.

Read the article carefully. It is about enclosures that were started during the late Middle Ages in England. It is not about hyperboles but explains the agrarian origins of modern capitalism.

 

Again, where on earth are you living? Although if you want to go back far enough, and as said previously, all land at some point way back in history was probably secured by force - which means your abode. The trouble is it's a result of human nature being what it is (which you appear to disagree with), some sort of forced security needs to be applied - after all, I presume you find the need to lock your door when leaving your abode like we all do. Not forgetting anything else, which unless chained are bolted down will almost certainly disappear in short order. But if you're are identifying that as some sort of basis for your argument, then I'm sorry, because if so, your argument is just ridiculous.

Land was not "secured" but taken by force, and that did not legitimize ownership. Enclosures did centuries later. Read the article for more details.

 

It was not "their abode" that armed men enclosed. Rather, it was land commonly used by peasants that they controlled.

 

Do you understand? They didn't secure land that they owned. Rather, they took away land commonly used by others by force.

 

That makes the claim of "forced security" based on "human nature" ridiculous, together with the analog of a locked door.

 

As said, that may well have been the origin long ago, but is hardly relevant today - nay, totally irrelevant today. I'm sorry once more, but you're just going into hyperbole again.

Ridiculous. Let's see you come up with proof showing that the global capitalist economy does not involve private ownership of the means of production!

 

And as said, your abode, or the area it's standing on, was doubtless originally obtained long ago by the method you indicate, so I presume you'll be surrendering it and handing it over to some better good.

Now, you're acknowledging the argument! You can't even make up your mind on this topic.

Fortunately, sun and wind provide sufficient energy, the ocean is not claimed by anyone, and the ocean and the ocean floor have sufficient resources, regardless of how much land is owned by capitalists. People can live on floating farms near the equator, where there are no violent storms. The potential for livable surface is vast.

They don't due to lower energy returns. This was explained to you in another thread about peak oil.

[EdEarl]

 

Fortunately, sun and wind provide sufficient energy, the ocean is not claimed by anyone, and the ocean and the ocean floor have sufficient resources, regardless of how much land is owned by capitalists. People can live on floating farms near the equator, where there are no violent storms. The potential for livable surface is vast.

They don't due to lower energy returns. This was explained to you in another thread about peak oil.

 

They don't My friend, people lived without either coal or oil for millennium, and they didn't have either solar PV or electricity generated by wind. Several civilizations became quite large and powerful, including the Romans. Water is essential for life, oil is a luxury.

 

Although, I think it will be unnecessary, submarine robots could also mine the ocean floor for Thorium and/or Uranium and make nuclear reactors, which provide power with energy returns adequate for your expectations.

[Delbert]

Read the article carefully. It is about enclosures that were started during the late Middle Ages in England. It is not about hyperboles but explains the agrarian origins of modern capitalism.

 

Late middle ages! What went on then is totally irrelevant to anything in today's world.

 

Land was not "secured" but taken by force, and that did not legitimize ownership. Enclosures did centuries later. Read the article for more details.

As I said, the place where your abode is was doubtless taken, as you call it, long ago by force. You may not like it but that's how things have happened, ownership of just about anything in the world was secured in such a way - it's human nature (which you seem to refute), read your history. In our so called civilized society we do such by asking others to do it for us - like the police and armed forces. We can only operate in a way that we call civilized under the umbrella of the police and armed forces - which apply and use force to maintain law and order.

 

If you think we don't need such (which is the impression I'm getting), just try to imagine what would happen without a police force, not to mention armed forces.

 

Yesterday and Sunday we remembered those who placed and sacrificed their life to maintain and preserve our way of life. And in case you've missed the point, it was the application of force to secure our possessions against someone who wanted to take it from us. Something we doubtless obtained by force a long time ago.

 

Frankly, It seems you don't understand how things operate. Yes, of course things we're secured by force - how else? There's a piece of land over there, the first one to get there stakes his claim, drafts a legal document of ownership and then secures it by force. If one doesn't mark one's plot and protect it by force, someone else would simply come along and push you out of the way - human nature again. You may not like that aspect of human nature (I'm not too keen on it myself), but it happens. Take another example: what happens when we apply for a job? We may not meet or even know who they are, but we doubtless embellish our ability to compete and effectively push aside any other candidates - we may not think that's what we're doing, but we're aggressively pushing aside others. As said previously: why do you lock your from door?

[ralfy]

They don't My friend, people lived without either coal or oil for millennium, and they didn't have either solar PV or electricity generated by wind. Several civilizations became quite large and powerful, including the Romans. Water is essential for life, oil is a luxury.

 

Although, I think it will be unnecessary, submarine robots could also mine the ocean floor for Thorium and/or Uranium and make nuclear reactors, which provide power with energy returns adequate for your expectations.

The amount of energy needed today, especially by a growing global middle class, exceeds those of "several civilizations" in the past multiple-fold.

 

For example, the U.S. alone, which has less than 5 pct of the world's population, requires up to 25 pct of world oil production to maintain economic growth. For the rest of the world to follow (and it has to given a global capitalist system) we will need several more earths.

 

Again, these and other points, including bio-capacity, issues concerning phosphorus, petrochemicals, and more were explained to you thoroughly in another thread.

Late middle ages! What went on then is totally irrelevant to anything in today's world.

But you even acknowledged the opposite in your subsequent posts!

 

As I said, the place where your abode is was doubtless taken, as you call it, long ago by force. You may not like it but that's how things have happened, ownership of just about anything in the world was secured in such a way - it's human nature (which you seem to refute), read your history. In our so called civilized society we do such by asking others to do it for us - like the police and armed forces. We can only operate in a way that we call civilized under the umbrella of the police and armed forces - which apply and use force to maintain law and order.

See what I mean? You're not just contradicting yourself in your posts, you even do it between paragraphs! Your second paragraph, for example, shows the opposite of the first. As I said, you can't even make up your mind about your own arguments.

 

Also, your second paragraph SUPPORTS arguments, not refutes them.

 

If you think we don't need such (which is the impression I'm getting), just try to imagine what would happen without a police force, not to mention armed forces.

I never argued that "we don't need such." What I said is that the origins of capitalism is violence, and you just confirmed that. The next thing is for your to figure out whether or not the same police and armed forces will not turn on the same civilians they are supposed to protect. Good luck with that naive fantasy.

 

Yesterday and Sunday we remembered those who placed and sacrificed their life to maintain and preserve our way of life. And in case you've missed the point, it was the application of force to secure our possessions against someone who wanted to take it from us. Something we doubtless obtained by force a long time ago.

Take it from us? You gotta be kidding me! It's the OTHER WAY round. In fact, it's been the other way round the past six decades!

 

What are you going to do next? Acknowledge that and argue that it's "natural" or that those who took must now return what they took, else the argument is wrong?

 

This is what you've been doing in all of your posts: first argue that capitalism is not based on violence, and then argue that it is so because violence is part of human nature, and then imply that capitalism isn't based on violence because those who benefit from capitalism aren't returning what they took.

 

Please make up your mind on this issue so that we can continue the discussion logically. Otherwise, you're just wasting my time by committing the same mistakes in each post.

 

Frankly, It seems you don't understand how things operate. Yes, of course things we're secured by force - how else? There's a piece of land over there, the first one to get there stakes his claim, drafts a legal document of ownership and then secures it by force. If one doesn't mark one's plot and protect it by force, someone else would simply come along and push you out of the way - human nature again. You may not like that aspect of human nature (I'm not too keen on it myself), but it happens. Take another example: what happens when we apply for a job? We may not meet or even know who they are, but we doubtless embellish our ability to compete and effectively push aside any other candidates - we may not think that's what we're doing, but we're aggressively pushing aside others. As said previously: why do you lock your from door?

No, you are completely wrong about this. Land enclosed was not secured but taken by force. And the fact that a "legal document" was created after the land was enclosed shows the origins of those legalities.

 

And the employment of a legal document has absolutely nothing to do human nature. If you study your history carefully, you will see that enclosures and private property based on the law came much later. That derails your argument about it being part of human nature, as your point would imply that private property should have existed from the beginning.

 

The rest of your post is irrelevant as it merely repeats my argument: the agrarian origins of capitalism (explained in my second post) leading to the current phenomena described in my first post. Your refuted neither.

[EdEarl]

 

They don't My friend, people lived without either coal or oil for millennium, and they didn't have either solar PV or electricity generated by wind. Several civilizations became quite large and powerful, including the Romans. Water is essential for life, oil is a luxury.

 

Although, I think it will be unnecessary, submarine robots could also mine the ocean floor for Thorium and/or Uranium and make nuclear reactors, which provide power with energy returns adequate for your expectations.

The amount of energy needed today, especially by a growing global middle class, exceeds those of "several civilizations" in the past multiple-fold.

 

For example, the U.S. alone, which has less than 5 pct of the world's population, requires up to 25 pct of world oil production to maintain economic growth. For the rest of the world to follow (and it has to given a global capitalist system) we will need several more earths.

 

Again, these and other points, including bio-capacity, issues concerning phosphorus, petrochemicals, and more were explained to you thoroughly in another thread.

 

The glut of energy used by people in the US is IMO unethical. While you may have inferred otherwise, I have not implied otherwise. Moreover, using energy indiscriminately is unnecessary to maintain a high standard of living, and the fact that corporations are implementing energy saving measures demonstrates that fact. It is my contention that people walking more and driving less would be better for everyone both ecologically and healthfully. The design of cities to promote driving is absurd. The capitalistic ethos has created a bizarre culture and is overall a disaster; although, there are some benefits.

 

I can accept that capitalism has been necessary in the evolution of human culture, but do not accept that it is the best we can possibly achieve.

[Delbert]

But you even acknowledged the opposite in your subsequent posts!

No, you're missing the point. My initial comment was in reply to your apparent conclusion that land (or whatever) was initially obtained by force, with the inference that in some way it is the underlying foundation with what you seem to conclude is a problem today. I'm agreeing that it did it happen long ago, but arguing it is just as prevalent today. We may not like that thought, but I suggest if we examine events, if not the things we all do to some degree, it's there.

 

What I said is that the origins of capitalism is violence, and you just confirmed that. The next thing is for your to figure out whether or not the same police and armed forces will not turn on the same civilians they are supposed to protect. Good luck with that naive fantasy.

Another coincidence, because to me your view is naïve.

 

Naïve because you appear to have some sort of idea that there's a system out there that's all peace and love. I'd be interested to know what it is?

 

Presumably some sort of system whereby everything considered of value is shared out equally to all. How that would prevent friction, discord and eventual conflict, not to mention getting anything done, I've really no idea. Presumably you'd have a police force to enforce order - oh dear a system supported by force!! And furthermore, who does the sharing - now that's unfair straightaway because someone or a group have power over others. Not to mention the loss of aspiration, desire, progress or even the need to simply do sod all! After all, why should anyone make or do anymore than they really have to, because they aren't going to get anything more than their allotted share if they did? So, one individual doesn't perform quite as much as he is supposed to, his neighbour then sees that in comparison he's now doing more, so he then reduces his output - ditto until collapse. Now that's summing it up too simplistically I know. But in a nutshell that's the philosophy. I think there is a place where they tried a system something like that after the second world war, and in the fullness of time it fell apart in disorder and destitution - if not disorder, destitution and poverty long before it collapsed. Not to mention maintained by oppressive heavy state control.

[Bill Angel]

Late middle ages! What went on then is totally irrelevant to anything in today's world.

 

As I said, the place where your abode is was doubtless taken, as you call it, long ago by force. You may not like it but that's how things have happened, ownership of just about anything in the world was secured in such a way - it's human nature (which you seem to refute), read your history. In our so called civilized society we do such by asking others to do it for us - like the police and armed forces. We can only operate in a way that we call civilized under the umbrella of the police and armed forces - which apply and use force to maintain law and order.

 

If you think we don't need such (which is the impression I'm getting), just try to imagine what would happen without a police force, not to mention armed forces.

 

Yesterday and Sunday we remembered those who placed and sacrificed their life to maintain and preserve our way of life. And in case you've missed the point, it was the application of force to secure our possessions against someone who wanted to take it from us. Something we doubtless obtained by force a long time ago.

 

Frankly, It seems you don't understand how things operate. Yes, of course things we're secured by force - how else? There's a piece of land over there, the first one to get there stakes his claim, drafts a legal document of ownership and then secures it by force. If one doesn't mark one's plot and protect it by force, someone else would simply come along and push you out of the way - human nature again. You may not like that aspect of human nature (I'm not too keen on it myself), but it happens. Take another example: what happens when we apply for a job? We may not meet or even know who they are, but we doubtless embellish our ability to compete and effectively push aside any other candidates - we may not think that's what we're doing, but we're aggressively pushing aside others. As said previously: why do you lock your from door?

 

I would not argue with what you are asserting, but still aspects of such a situation are disturbing to me. Here is an image taken Monday (Veteran's Day) at the site of the New York Stock Exchange:

 

Members of our military visited the floor of the NYSE, where they received a warm greeting. I also served in the military 30 years ago, and had I been called upon to risk my life in order to achieve our national security objectives, I would prefer that such objectives be aligned with our values of defending freedom of speech, separation of church and state, due process under the law, rights of minorities, etc, rather than the economic agenda of stockbrokers at the New York Stock Exchange.