who invented capitalism?

[Dr Mindbender]

If Marx and Engles can be accredited with inventing communism what person, persons or group can be regarded as responsible for capitalism?

[Dimentio]

Marx and Engels did not invent communism, they merely interpreted a current and defined what the socialist struggle really was about. Neither capitalism was an ideological product.

Capitalism evolved together with the growing burgher class. Its first interpretors where the "natural rights" philosophers like John Locke, but the true philosophical justification for capitalism lies within traditional economics.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some historians accredit Marx with penning the term capitalism.

As Serpent pointed out, nobody created capitalism, and nobody created communism. From capitalism, socialism was born. The antagonism of classes shifted. When Marx and Engels were still ignorant about the plights of working class persons, there were theorists and activists all around the world promoting socialism and communism (for a time they were separated by clear distinctions - socialists wanted to revise the system into something new, communists wanted to overthrow it. There's a theory that communists in England adopted the word socialism because communism sounds too much like Catholic communal)

[Demogorgon]

You might as well ask who invented turtles or chimpanzees. Political and economic systems evolve. They are not "invented".

[jasmine]

You might as well ask who invented turtles or chimpanzees. Political and economic systems evolve. They are not "invented".

So why do we need a revolution?

[Dean]

So why do we need a revolution?

Good to see you back! :)

[mykittyhasaboner]

So why do we need a revolution?

revolution evolves the same way a political ideology does, its not invented or orchastrated. the working class's conciousness evolves as material conditions change, usually for the worse. so a revolution is the result of the working class becoming concious enough to realize its in everyones best interest to overthrow capitalism.

we need a revolution, because capitalism cannot "evolve" out of itself. rather humanity must evolve out of capitalism by overthrowing it. this is what happened when feudalism and absolute monarchy was overthrown. capitalism wasn't suddenly invented and patented by Adam Smith or whatever. nationalism, republicanism, and citizenship, were progressive ideals in those times. just as internationalist, collective, classless society is now.

[jasmine]

Hi Dean :)

glad to see you were finally unrestricted. You are much more revolutionary than most of the ideologically hidebound types here. Or am I being untypically provocative?

[Dean]

revolution evolves the same way a political ideology does, its not invented or orchastrated. the working class's conciousness evolves as material conditions change, usually for the worse. so a revolution is the result of the working class becoming concious enough to realize its in everyones best interest to overthrow capitalism.

we need a revolution, because capitalism cannot "evolve" out of itself. rather humanity must evolve out of capitalism by overthrowing it.

I think she's asking why we need to fight for revolution, if we look at it as an inevitability. I posted something very similar to this about technocracy in the Economics subforum: http://www.revleft.com/vb/post-scarcity-and-t85213/index.html

Basically, the issue is one between having a principled rationale for revolution and looking at it from an academic stance where you are only interested in arguing for its inevitability.

[jasmine]

revolution evolves the same way a political ideology does, its not invented or orchastrated. the working class's conciousness evolves as material conditions change, usually for the worse. so a revolution is the result of the working class becoming concious enough to realize its in everyones best interest to overthrow capitalism.



And the evidence for this glorious theory is what exactly?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would say Guttenberg, the Crusaders, and an overwhelming desire for progress. Just to name a few.

[jasmine]

I would say Guttenberg, the Crusaders, and an overwhelming desire for progress. Just to name a few.

Guttenberg - the press I suppose.

The Crusaders - this was socially progressive? I think I'd vote for your restriction!

an overwhelming desire for progress. Just to name a few. - right. So now I know. Just to name a few. Exactly.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The Crusaders - this was socially progressive? I think I'd vote for your restriction!

The computer, jet engine, and radar were born out of WWII.

WWII itself wasn't progresisve. Likewise, the Crusaders brought back Eastern thinking and inventions (I believe these included the rudder, and the triangular sail) to Europe. This ended the isolation Europe was in and was, I believe, a major step in bringing about the Rennaissance and age of exploration. Both of these were prerequisites for Europes move from the world's shithole to the driving force in not only capitalism, but most of civilizations gains for hundreds of years.

The Crusades themselves were an evil conquest. But judging all history in the Nuremburg-fashion is stupid.

[Demogorgon]

So why do we need a revolution?

To get rid of old institutions of power. Revolutions are part of the process of societal evolution, but they are not the only part, or even, necessarily, the most important part even if they are certainly the most dramatic.

[jasmine]

To get rid of old institutions of power. Revolutions are part of the process of societal evolution, but they are not the only part, or even, necessarily, the most important part even if they are certainly the most dramatic.

Revolutions are not evolution. Otherwise we wouldn't need two different words. Social revolution is a purposeful, conscious act. Evolution is a natural progression. I agree, Marxism tried to fuse the two, but Marx was wrong. Socialism is not the inevitable product of capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

The computer, jet engine, and radar were born out of WWII.
.

As i technocrat i would argue that we should have been persuing those acheivements even under peace time circumstances.

This is why capitalism is a millstone to human progress, it only brings about these developments out of necessity and times of crisis.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Hi Dean :)

glad to see you were finally unrestricted. You are much more revolutionary than most of the ideologically hidebound types here. Or am I being untypically provocative?
No, you're being typically provocative. Why did you come back? Most of the OIers around nowadays are civil and polite and not afraid to engage in constructive debate, so your hostile snotty attitude may not be as appreciated as it once was.


Guttenberg - the press I suppose.

The Crusaders - this was socially progressive? I think I'd vote for your restriction!

an overwhelming desire for progress. Just to name a few. - right. So now I know. Just to name a few. Exactly.
He is restricted...


Revolutions are not evolution. Otherwise we wouldn't need two different words. Social revolution is a purposeful, conscious act. Evolution is a natural progression. I agree, Marxism tried to fuse the two, but Marx was wrong. Socialism is not the inevitable product of capitalism.
This is itself a theory which needs evidence to back it up, just like the "glorious" theory you addressed a couple of posts up. If your evidence is that "otherwise we wouldn't need two different words", that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Revolution could simply be a part in the process of evolution. A revolution, in the context of social progress, simply means a rapid and large-scale reform of social structures or prevailing attitudes. While it is true that evolution is generally a long and drawn out process, there is nothing in that to suggest that revolution and evolution are mutually exclusive.

[Red_or_Dead]

The Crusaders - this was socially progressive?

While they were what they were (religious freaks, Christian equivalent of Al Qaida), I agree with TheCultOfAbeLincoln. Regardless of what they did in the middle east, they did bring back a lot of new inventions and ideas. Remeber, were talking about the middle ages here, a time when the Arabs were ahead of Europe in practicly every field, including medicine, art, architecture, mathemathics and technology in general. The Gothic style in European art was hugely influenced by middle-eastern art. And from Gothic there was only a short step to the Renaissance and the crumbling of European feudalism.

Of course, the Crusaders did not have that in mind, but it is a consequence of their actions.


This is itself a theory which needs evidence to back it up, just like the "glorious" theory you addressed a couple of posts up. If your evidence is that "otherwise we wouldn't need two different words", that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Revolution could simply be a part in the process of evolution. A revolution, in the context of social progress, simply means a rapid and large-scale reform of social structures or prevailing attitudes. While it is true that evolution is generally a long and drawn out process, there is nothing in that to suggest that revolution and evolution are mutually exclusive.

I agree - infact we could say that Revolution and Evolution in this context, are the same, with the speed being the only difference.


we need a revolution, because capitalism cannot "evolve" out of itself. rather humanity must evolve out of capitalism by overthrowing it.

This. We must always keep in mind that any social evolution and/or revolution is a consequence of our actions or inactions. Capitalism cannot evolve on itself, just like any other system or idea. It takes people to make changes in ideas and systems.

[Demogorgon]

Revolutions are not evolution. Otherwise we wouldn't need two different words. Social revolution is a purposeful, conscious act. Evolution is a natural progression. I agree, Marxism tried to fuse the two, but Marx was wrong. Socialism is not the inevitable product of capitalism.

No, revolutions are what happens when society's evolution is being held back. People tend to misunderstand what a revolution is. People here particularly see it as a romantic thing, a glorious battle, usually believing that it will be over quickly. But that is rarely how it happens. Revolutions are frequently slow burning things, a period of low level conflict over a number of years, forcing change slowly but surely against the will of the elite and eventually unseating them. They are almost the lubricant that keeps societies evolution moving along.

Revolutions are not planned acts and often start out as protests not intended to dislodge the Government. The Russian Revolution started, for instance, as a protest against food shortages. They can spiral.

Really though, what needs to be emphasised is that revolutions are simply flash points in a much larger historical process.

[jasmine]

This is itself a theory which needs evidence to back it up, just like the "glorious" theory you addressed a couple of posts up. If your evidence is that "otherwise we wouldn't need two different words", that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Revolution could simply be a part in the process of evolution. A revolution, in the context of social progress, simply means a rapid and large-scale reform of social structures or prevailing attitudes. While it is true that evolution is generally a long and drawn out process, there is nothing in that to suggest that revolution and evolution are mutually exclusive.

The modern Darwinian-based theory of evolution interestingly sees nothing as inevitable. There's no progress just random mutation that leaves alive those that adapt best to the environment. So I don't see this as terribly useful when looking at history.

Revolution as part of a progressive evolutionary advancement that you talk about is quite a good description of Marx's theories - the recent evidence that speaks against this is that the revolutions of the 20th century did not grow out the preceding mode of production in the way that capitalism emerged from feudalism.

The Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban etc. revolutions were national in character and it's hard to see the relationship between the forms of production that emerged and those that Marx envisaged (based on the Paris Commune). Also most of the countries that abolished capitalism in the first half of the 20th century were busy restoring it a few decades later.

You could of course look at these revolutions as comparable to a failed Darwinian mutation but then you're veering dangerously close to seeing history as a series of random collective actions with unforseeable results (which is a possibility).

Interesting that you've declared yourself a reformist.

[jasmine]

Really though, what needs to be emphasised is that revolutions are simply flash points in a much larger historical process.


But doesn't this mean that everything is inevitable?

[Hiero]

revolution evolves the same way a political ideology does, its not invented or orchastrated. the working class's conciousness evolves as material conditions change, usually for the worse. so a revolution is the result of the working class becoming concious enough to realize its in everyones best interest to overthrow capitalism.

we need a revolution, because capitalism cannot "evolve" out of itself. rather humanity must evolve out of capitalism by overthrowing it. this is what happened when feudalism and absolute monarchy was overthrown. capitalism wasn't suddenly invented and patented by Adam Smith or whatever. nationalism, republicanism, and citizenship, were progressive ideals in those times. just as internationalist, collective, classless society is now.

I think develop is the correct word, rather then evolve.

Evolve implies qualitative change. Under capitalism productive forces (including the working class) develop till they can't develop any more. At the start of capitalist history the productive forces qualitatively in essence were the same as they are today. Over time they have develop, became larger and more advanced, but they haven't been evolving.

[Demogorgon]

But doesn't this mean that everything is inevitable?
Things that haven't yet happened cannot be said to be inevitable, but if you know enough about society and what has happened, you can make reasonably accurate predictions as to what will happen.

The Development of society has been ongoing for longer than recorded history. It is hardly going to just stop, is it?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The modern Darwinian-based theory of evolution interestingly sees nothing as inevitable. There's no progress just random mutation that leaves alive those that adapt best to the environment. So I don't see this as terribly useful when looking at history.


Nice to see you back, and stupid as ever. You don't understand evolution - the whole point is that there is inevitable progression, as species become better and better at dealing with their environment. You practically said it yourself in your post, so you must be deliberately trying to bastardise the facts to fit in with your silly ideas. Again.

-Alex

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So why do we need a revolution?

The same reason the bourgeoisie needed revolutions: to replace the system before it, notably the laws.

[ships-cat]

Who invented Capitalism ?

Look.. I'm sorry... it was just an O'level project... I didn't expect anyone to take it SERIOUSLY :(

Sorreeeeeeee... :blushing:

Meow Purr :laugh:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Look.. I'm sorry... it was just an O'level project... I didn't expect anyone to take it SERIOUSLY

Ah, you underestimated revleft. Here, we'll debate Coke VS Pepsi with the same ferocity as Kronstadt. :)

-Alex

[Forward Union]

If Marx and Engles can be accredited with inventing communism what person, persons or group can be regarded as responsible for capitalism?

I would say that Capitalism in any recognisable form began in England, accelerating after the death of King Charls 1 and the success of the Roundheads in the English Revolution.

The new English Republic began establishing the Enclosures acts, which turned the land which was originally "owned by god" into private property of the new ruling class. They began privatising all the plantations and completely transformed class relations.

It was finalised in the industrial revolution, when the private land was industrialised, and the Serf class became the proletariat, moving en masse into the cities like London, Manchester and Sheffield to work in the new factories. England was the first country to industrialise, to build canals, trains and factories, and to concertrate the peasants into urban centers.

Id say this was the birth of capitalism. But it wasnt invented by anyone.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

As i technocrat i would argue that we should have been persuing those acheivements even under peace time circumstances.

This is why capitalism is a millstone to human progress, it only brings about these developments out of necessity and times of crisis.

I wholeheartedly agree. But at the same time Necessity has served as the mother of invention for milenia.

[Bud Struggle]

Ah, you underestimated revleft. Here, we'll debate Coke VS Pepsi with the same ferocity as Kronstadt. :)

-Alex

Brilliant!!! :laugh:

[534634634265]

I would hypothesise that greed led to capitalism. i would also posit that greed has lead to almost all societal change, for better or for worse.

[danyboy27]

If Marx and Engles can be accredited with inventing communism what person, persons or group can be regarded as responsible for capitalism?

its me, i am sorry, didnt meant to creat an ideaology that would destroy thr world for 10000 year!

joke

[gla22]

Marx actually coined the term capitalism. He invented it in a sort of way because it is under his term that we understand the current economic system.

[danyboy27]

communism and capitalism never been invented by anyone if you ask me.
it was there since the world exist, both ideologies developed with time, developed by differents peoples and differents thinkers

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I would hypothesise that greed led to capitalism. i would also posit that greed has lead to almost all societal change, for better or for worse.

You do realize that Capitalism allowed the 90%+ of people who weren't Royalty the ability to own land, which was a hugely progressive step.

It was the triumph of societys needs over the greed of the esteemed classes which is why Capitalism was (and in many places is) the progressive force.

[Red_or_Dead]

You do realize that Capitalism allowed the 90%+ of people who weren't Royalty the ability to own land, which was a hugely progressive step.

It was the triumph of societys needs over the greed of the esteemed classes which is why Capitalism was (and in many places is) the progressive force.


While I dont argue that it was a progressive step in its times, those times are long gone.

19th century capitalism allowed 90%+ of people to own land, and own property, that much is true, but only few could afford to. Pretty much like today, when just having acces to internet qualifies you into the top 10% of the worlds population by wealth.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If Marx and Engles can be accredited with inventing communism what person, persons or group can be regarded as responsible for capitalism?

Primarily Adam Smith, but David Ricardo is woefully underestimated. The former wrote The Wealth of Nations against the mercantilism and the deficit of specialization of his day, but arguably such mercantilism could be seen as the beginning of capitalism, given the primitive accumulation involved.

[jasmine]

Nice to see you back, and stupid as ever. You don't understand evolution - the whole point is that there is inevitable progression, as species become better and better at dealing with their environment. You practically said it yourself in your post, so you must be deliberately trying to bastardise the facts to fit in with your silly ideas. Again.


This is completely wrong and based on ideological assumptions. In modern evolutionary theory there is no assumption of so-called progress. The view is that if you re-ran evolution from the single cell there is no way of knowing what would happen. There is no reason to assume that the human race and all that we now know would be the result.

If you don't believe me read "The Bind Watchmaker" by Stephen Dawkins.

Evolutionary adaptation is not progress it's just adaptation based on whatever environment exists. If the environment changes so does the nature of the adaptation.

There's no reason to assume that the environment will progess, whatever that means. And not knowing what happens to the environment means there's no way of knowing, less controling, which adaptations will be successfull.

The idea of inevitable progress is a result of the Victorian, British, very capitalist economic era.

[Killfacer]

what do you mean by capitalist. Sorry this sounds stupid but, do you mean people just bartering and trading? Or a more complicated system?

[jasmine]

No, revolutions are what happens when society's evolution is being held back. People tend to misunderstand what a revolution is. People here particularly see it as a romantic thing, a glorious battle, usually believing that it will be over quickly. But that is rarely how it happens. Revolutions are frequently slow burning things, a period of low level conflict over a number of years, forcing change slowly but surely against the will of the elite and eventually unseating them. They are almost the lubricant that keeps societies evolution moving along.

Revolutions are not planned acts and often start out as protests not intended to dislodge the Government. The Russian Revolution started, for instance, as a protest against food shortages. They can spiral.

Really though, what needs to be emphasised is that revolutions are simply flash points in a much larger historical process.




Can you give me an example of this?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

This is completely wrong and based on ideological assumptions. In modern evolutionary theory there is no assumption of so-called progress.

Just pipe down and listen, for once. Natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolution. Agreed? The mutations themselves are random, but these mutations are only preserved if they are beneficial to X creature's survival and reproduction. Therefore, overtime, we should see a progression towards creatures that are better and better at survival and reproduction. Surprise surprise, that is exactly what has happened.


The view is that if you re-ran evolution from the single cell there is no way of knowing what would happen. There is no reason to assume that the human race and all that we now know would be the result.

Where did I say that it would? You bizarre person. I said there would be a progression, not that there would be the human race again. And I'm right - there would be a progression, as anyone with a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary biology can tell you.


If you don't believe me read "The Bind Watchmaker" by Stephen Dawkins.

You mean The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins. I have read that book 3 times, it's on my bookshelf now. You're a joke.


Evolutionary adaptation is not progress it's just adaptation based on whatever environment exists. If the environment changes so does the nature of the adaptation.

Well, environment is only half the story. A creature getting more fertile is always evolutionarily advantageous. A creature getting more intelligent is always evolutionarily advantageous, along with speed, strength, whatever other attribute you care to name. Certain traits are useful irrespective of environment. Also, even with environment-specific mutations, I don't see how you've reached the conclusion that because they might be made redundant, they are magically not progress anymore. You might just as well say that the horse and cart wasn't progress because we have cars now - you are wrong, it was, and environment-specific mutations are.


There's no reason to assume that the environment will progess, whatever that means. And not knowing what happens to the environment means there's no way of knowing, less controling, which adaptations will be successfull.

What are you even talking about? Where have I said that "the environment will progress"? Why is knowing and controlling the successful adaptions important? That happens anyway, through natural selection. You really are nuts.


The idea of inevitable progress is a result of the Victorian, British, very capitalist economic era.

Evidence?

-Alex

[Bud Struggle]

This is completely wrong and based on ideological assumptions. In modern evolutionary theory there is no assumption of so-called progress. True--there is evidence of streamlining. All evolution doesn't end up in pure brainmatter. Animals get better at catching and eating other animals--but other animals get better at evading the animals that chase them. But TO A POINT. Animals still run away, but animals still get caught. Ito call such a thing "progress" misses the point of the word.


The view is that if you re-ran evolution from the single cell there is no way of knowing what would happen. There is no reason to assume that the human race and all that we now know would be the result. True. Starting from the beginning and infinite number of possibilities could have taken place.


If you don't believe me read "The Bind Watchmaker" by Stephen Dawkins. I find polemics of any kind irksome.


Evolutionary adaptation is not progress it's just adaptation based on whatever environment exists. If the environment changes so does the nature of the adaptation. Yup. To call nature "progressive" is anthropromorphic.


There's no reason to assume that the environment will progess, whatever that means. And not knowing what happens to the environment means there's no way of knowing, less controling, which adaptations will be successfull. In other words--we know nothing about the future. I can agree with that.


The idea of inevitable progress is a result of the Victorian, British, very capitalist economic era. Charming bit of intuition. Add to that list the very Victorian: Karl Marx.

Nice post, Jasmine.

[RGacky3]

Most social systems like Capitalism, feudalism, slavery and Monarchism just developed out of power struggles and then once in place people made theories to justify them.

Socialism, Anarchims, and arguable democracy and republicanism things went the other way around, people came up with theories and principles first and then tried to develop them.

The latter systems are primarily ethically based, the former are primarily power structure based.

Using the term progressive as many marxists do to describe social structures is wrong because the worth of social structures is based on subjective perspectives and moral viewpoints, so you can never say one is progressive over the other, unless your talking subjectively. Its not like talking about weightlifting, where the progression is objective (if he lifts more weight, its more weight for everyone).

[Killfacer]

let us face the facts; no one invented capitalism.

[Djehuti]

If Marx and Engles can be accredited with inventing communism what person, persons or group can be regarded as responsible for capitalism?

Marx did not invent communism, he invented the scientific theory of communism. Darwin did not invent the evolution, he invented the scientific theory of evolution, etc.

If you wan't to know how capitalism evolved, read Leo Hubermans "Man's worldly goods".

http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Worldly-Goods-Wealth-Nations/dp/1406798207/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218188949&sr=8-1

On of the best books I've ever read. Every marxist must read it.

[jasmine]

Charming bit of intuition. Add to that list the very Victorian: Karl Marx.

Nice post, Jasmine.

Thank you TomK. My, my you are learning quickly.

[jasmine]

A creature getting more intelligent is always evolutionarily advantageous, along with speed, strength, whatever other attribute you care to name. Certain traits are useful irrespective of environment.


Again, this is wrong. Intelligence will not do the human race any good at all if the anticipated climate change kicks in. We'll all die because our physicality is unable to survive the new extremes of temperature.

How did the strength of the dinosour help it survive when the meteorite hit the earth? At that point simpler, smaller organisms were more suited to the environment and survived. Including a few mammals which is why we are here. According the theory.

The complex creatures you see around you have been here for a very short time in evolutionary history. Species are dying every decade. They may all disappear in the next few hundred years because of what we have done. We, the most intelligent creatures on the planet.

Will that be progress?

[Jazzratt]

Again, this is wrong. Intelligence will not do the human race any good at all if the anticipated climate change kicks in. We'll all die because our physicality is unable to survive the new extremes of temperature.

The thing with intelligence is that it can be applied to just about any problem. Temperatures too extreme? Live underground with regulated air temperatures and ventilation.


How did the strength of the dinosour help it survive when the meteorite hit the earth?

It didn't. But imagine if the dinosaurs had been able to build bunkers...


At that point simpler, smaller organisms were more suited to the environment and survived. Including a few mammals which is why we are here. According the theory.

Correct.


The complex creatures you see around you have been here for a very short time in evolutionary history. Species are dying every decade.

Also correct.


They may all disappear in the next few hundred years because of what we have done.

Not so much, sounds like sensationalist psuedoscience to me, but feel free to explain why you think it isn't.


We, the most intelligent creatures on the planet.

Yeah, it's all our fault. Misanthrope.


Will that be progress?

Well no it wouldn't be progress, but so would a lot of things that are unlikely to happen.

[jasmine]

The thing with intelligence is that it can be applied to just about any problem. Temperatures too extreme? Live underground with regulated air temperatures and ventilation


Right, but what will we eat? How do we grow crops? Where will the water come from? We are dependent on certain physical elements. If they disappear so do we. And they can disappear and, according to evoluionary theory, when these elements vanish those that best live without them will survive. Whatever they might be. Progress is bullshit.

[Jazzratt]

Right, but what will we eat? How do we grow crops?

Fungal cultures? Hydroponically grown food from areas with synthesised surface conditions?


Where will the water come from?

Purified from underground reservoirs and/or "recycled" from waste.


We are dependent on certain physical elements. If they disappear so do we. And they can disappear and, according to evoluionary theory, when these elements vanish those that best live without them will survive. Whatever they might be. Progress is bullshit.

If it's all so pointless why do you bother living? Progress in science, technology and politics is the only way we will overcome the problems facing us.

[pusher robot]

Again, this is wrong. Intelligence will not do the human race any good at all if the anticipated climate change kicks in. We'll all die because our physicality is unable to survive the new extremes of temperature.

Uhhh, just FYI, the "anticipated climate change" is a matter of a few degrees, occurring mostly in regions where it is already too cold for humans to survive without technology. Temperatures will not be unsurvivable.

[jasmine]

Uhhh, just FYI, the "anticipated climate change" is a matter of a few degrees, occurring mostly in regions where it is already too cold for humans to survive without technology. Temperatures will not be unsurvivable.

Well thank you for your obviously definitive opinion. The reality is that there are more opinions than just yours:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/aug/09/scienceandnature.climatechange

This is one interesting review of the possibilities.

The point I was making was that evolution, the theory, has nothing to do with progress. Cockcroaches have been remarkably successful in preserving genetic material.

Also, jazzratt, if your bunkers were built who would be living in them and benefiting from your fantasy food production? Bill Gates and friends I think. How progressive would that be?

And when you ask me, if I think everything is so pointless why do I bother living, are you sure you are not talking to yourself?

I have another perspective on life than just the material - one that you and your little friends here like to ridicule but seem unable to replace with your blind faith in theories that you barely understand.

Here's an article, obviously alarmist and wrong, because we all know that progress is inevitable, about the effects of a few degrees rise in temperature:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/08/kingsnorthclimatecamp.climatechange

[Trystan]

Progress is bullshit.

Have you been reading John Gray, by any chance? Just curious.

[jasmine]

Have you been reading John Gray, by any chance? Just curious


No, but making these sort of comments is much easier than dealing with the inconvienient substance of what I'm saying.

[Trystan]

No, but making these sort of comments is much easier than dealing with the inconvienient substance of what I'm saying.

Oh, touché. I haven't really been reading what you've posted. Like I said, I was just curious after I saw the comment about progress.

[Green Dragon]

[quote=RGacky3;1212843]Most social systems like Capitalism, feudalism, slavery and Monarchism just developed out of power struggles and then once in place people made theories to justify them.

Socialism, Anarchims, and arguable democracy and republicanism things went the other way around, people came up with theories and principles first and then tried to develop them.

The latter systems are primarily ethically based, the former are primarily power structure based.



So you are arguing that capitalism et. al arose out of people living and going about their lives. Then people came along and explained this.

Meanwhile socialism et. al. arose out of telling people what to do, and why they should do as they are told.
How is that "ethical" and not "power" based?

[RGacky3]

So you are arguing that capitalism et. al arose out of people living and going about their lives. Then people came along and explained this.


Thats a nice way of wording it, Capitalism did'nt arise out of people living their lives, it arose as a power structure, a different way of exploitation and gainging power. Then people trying to explain this powe structure came about and tried to justify it. Thats generally the case, Monarchies did not arise by people just living their lives, Monarchies came about by people taking control, the same with Capitalism, and then justified later.


Meanwhile socialism et. al. arose out of telling people what to do, and why they should do as they are told.
How is that "ethical" and not "power" based?

Socialism and Democracy and the such came about, by challening power structures on a moral basis, saying that those power structures are invalid and people should not have to be subject to them.

Marx and Bakunin and some of the founding fathers of the States came up with sets of principles challening power structures, and challenging the authority of them.

btw you word things very well by saying "capitalist et." and "socialism et." Rather than what I said, Capitalism, Monarchism, Feudalism, and the such, i.e. all systems aimed at upholding authoritarian structures, and Socialism, Anarchism and Democracy, systems based on dismanteling those structures.

[Bud Struggle]

Fuedalism, Capitalism and Communism are ALL power structures. The only difference among them is where the power is concentrated.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Uhhh, just FYI, the "anticipated climate change" is a matter of a few degrees, occurring mostly in regions where it is already too cold for humans to survive without technology. Temperatures will not be unsurvivable.

That's exactly what Dennis Miller said yesterday at his comedy tour [...] before he said George Bush was one of the best men in history. I couldn't take him seriously. :laugh:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Fuedalism, Capitalism and Communism are ALL power structures. The only difference among them is where the power is concentrated.

And communism means everyone will share power :lol::lol::lol:

[Green Dragon]

Thats a nice way of wording it, Capitalism did'nt arise out of people living their lives, it arose as a power structure, a different way of exploitation and gainging power. Then people trying to explain this powe structure came about and tried to justify it. Thats generally the case, Monarchies did not arise by people just living their lives, Monarchies came about by people taking control, the same with Capitalism, and then justified later.



Socialism and Democracy and the such came about, by challening power structures on a moral basis, saying that those power structures are invalid and people should not have to be subject to them.

Marx and Bakunin and some of the founding fathers of the States came up with sets of principles challening power structures, and challenging the authority of them.

btw you word things very well by saying "capitalist et." and "socialism et." Rather than what I said, Capitalism, Monarchism, Feudalism, and the such, i.e. all systems aimed at upholding authoritarian structures, and Socialism, Anarchism and Democracy, systems based on dismanteling those structures.

No, "socialism and democracy" did not arise challenging "power structure." They arose proposing their own "power structure" and challenged others.

I did not say "et al(l)" I said "et al." (admittedly on one "al" I neglected the "."). Critics of scoalism and democracy long argued that both would be far more authoritarian and tyrannical than anything they hoped to replace.

[RGacky3]

They arose proposing their own "power structure" and challenged others.


They rose as a reaction to power structures, Democracy rose as a reaction to Monarchies, it was a direct reaction against Monarchism, in both Athens and the United States and Europe.

Socialism came as a direct reaction against Capitalism, in both its Authoritarian, its Democratic and Libertarian forms.


Critics of scoalism and democracy long argued that both would be far more authoritarian and tyrannical than anything they hoped to replace.

Sure, but they are wrong.

[Baconator]

Capitalism also grew when rationality made a comeback. It is no great mystery why the discovery of the scientific method happened around the same time capitalism and individualism began to flourish.

[Killfacer]

much of capitalism is just a natural concept. I want your fur, so i will trade my ivory for your fur. Make sense? Capitalism, was not invented. Thought we had agreed on that already.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think you need to lay off the Civ 4, dude.

[Killfacer]

:p

[jasmine]

Well no it wouldn't be progress, but so would a lot of things that are unlikely to happen.


Your view, Jazzrat, on climate change, is remarkably close to that of George Bush - his view is obviously politically motivated. Can you explain where your view comes from? Why do you think the possible catastrophic events, predicted by many scientists, are "unlikely to happen"?

[RGacky3]

Capitalism also grew when rationality made a comeback. It is no great mystery why the discovery of the scientific method happened around the same time capitalism and individualism began to flourish.

Capitalism also grew when Imperialism started to kick off, what does the scientific mothed have anything to do with that. Also Capitalism had nothing to do with individualism, things did'nt become more individualistic than they were during the middle ages, at leats not due to Capitalism.



much of capitalism is just a natural concept. I want your fur, so i will trade my ivory for your fur. Make sense? Capitalism, was not invented. Thought we had agreed on that already.


Trade =/= Capitalism, Capitalism is based on Private Capital and Land and Wage slavery, at least thats what I'm refering to when I talk about it, trade is just a part of Capitalism.