Philosophy Now Forum

not where we are but where we are going needs to
be discussed...Marx had the right idea in that he didn't just
write about what was, but he wrote about what is and what
should be... and we can learn from Marx about what our
future ought to be.. which really what we need to be
talking about.... and part of that discussion about where
we need to be, includes ethics/morality, politics, philosophy
and economics and science... in other words, we need to
take the various aspects of our current existence and weave
them into a coherent whole...

let us begin with economics... as that is the primary focus of
our modern world... we see economics in terms of what it
does for us, we make money so we can buy things... but to get
a real grasp of economics, we must take a wide view of what
our current economics has done to and about us...

the price of our current economics has been to take apart
or remove the past understanding of human beings by
isolating and separating us into discrete units... we are seen
as individuals who contribute to a society/state... we are not
seen as part of a whole entity...the entire motto of capitalism
is this:

''private vices creates public good"

you want capitalism in a nutshell, that is it...
but that motto is not only just flat out wrong,
but it has brought us to the point of world wide
crisis... and why? because it isolates us from others...
what matter is our own individual creation of wealth...
and that goal is what is so damaging to us, both individually
and collectively...

if we were to continue to practice capitalism, as it is currently practiced,
we will reach a point, which we can see, that we will individually
and collectively destroy ourselves... capitalism carried out much
further, will end the human species...and why?
because it denies the basic point of human existence which
is the social nature of human beings... we not only want to
be a collective, but we have a biological need to belong to
a group or a collective..

we see in modern capitalism that it denies several of our basic
biological functions.. it doesn't care if people eat, a basic biological
function...it doesn't care if people are educated or have health care
or have shelter.. all basic human needs, all unfulfilled in capitalism

or have you forgotten that millions of people worldwide, including
those in America and the west, have been reduced to poverty,
where they have little ability to even feed themselves, or to house
themselves or to be educate or to have clean drinkable water,
that capitalism has forced millions of people into living an
animal existence and that is somehow seen as being desirable...
watching millions of people, our fellow human beings suffering in
such a fashion...and we escape accountability by blaming the "system"
instead of putting blame exactly where it belongs, on us....
that is the beauty of capitalism.. it allows us to escape individual
accountability... we can just blame the system... and hold our head high...
so, what is preferable to allowing people to slowly starve to death?

let us look at other countries, the fact is that the European countries
do a much better job of taking care of their citizens than America does...
by creating a much more centralized state... by holding
economic creation as a product of the state oversight...
unlike in America where the state is seen as a villain,
a thing to be avoided... (the old Raygun joke,
to be terrified of the man who says, I am from the government)
whereas the truth is, we cannot be human beings, as the Greeks
believed, without the city/polis.. and that requires us to have
government.... to grow and become human.. going from animal
to animal/human to finally becoming fully human, requires/demands
us to have a fully functional, working government....
one that takes an active part in our lives... so instead of
making government small enough to drown in a bathtub,
we do something radical like making government, including
congress accountable to us... if we actually had a democracy,
we could, but we don't... in America today, we have a corporatocracy...
government by big business... and so, that leads us to the second point,
we must fight to return America especially, but in all western countries,
back to being democracies.. true democracies... not just pretend ones
like we have today...

so now we have two such goals going forward, we take
back the government from big business and we reduce
the power/influence of big business in our lives..

note that within America, we have 6 companies that
own 95% of all the media in America... that is why we
have a media that simple parrots itself...
and has no interest in actually providing news to American's,
but is actively engaged in promoting the values and interests of
of big business...the media today is simple promoting the
propaganda of big business and has no other value....

so as part of the goal of creating a better tomorrow,
we must end the monopolies of having just 6 companies
engaged in the media... America would be better served
if the news were to expand, just like in democracies itself,
by the many, and not by the few...

if there is an overarching theme of my thesis, it is this,
we must include the many and not have just a few involved...
and this principle involves government, the media, the state,
the day to day functions of American's...

if our modern world has done nothing else, it has reduced
or eliminated the average person involvement in the world...
from economics to politics to sports to the media...
the average person role in the society has been reduced
or eliminated... what impact does the average person have
in say the media or in government? If you are not a billionaire,
you have no impact on America today, politically, economically,
socially or philosophically.... and that is what must change in
the future... we must bring back the individual in the modern world...
socially, economically, politically and philosophically....

that is part of the agenda of bring about change and creating
a new goal in the state/society....

so what are we aiming for in our search for a better tomorrow?
we are seeking to bring the individual back into the equation
of society, the state, the media, economically....
right now, the individual has no relevance in our modern world,
unless one is a billionaire who can simply buy politicians and media
time...the individual has no relevance in our world economical
unless you fulfill certain aspects of the modern world,
being a consumer, buying goods that keep the modern economy
flowing, by being a producer.. being a worker in a factory..
or as my job is, which is "factory lite" being a checker
is simply being a factory worker in a checkstand....
doing the exact same thing over and over and over again...
or a worker.....one who services the multitude of goods
being produced in the world today... in fact, I would
suggest that the most common job in America today is
in the form of workers who services the various products
being created by big business....

and we have financial institutions like banks and wall street
that don't actually create any wealth or products...
they make their money by skimming off the top
actual workers wealth/money.... they produce or create
nothing... and some of the wealthiest corporations in America today
are companies like banks and wall street firms that create nothing...
produce nothing... by simple handling money and holding it..
that is the basis of their vast wealth...moving money around....
banks/wall street firms are simply nothing more than leaches
who survive on the activity of others...
and part of recovering America comes from ending the power
and influence of banks and wall street firms...

so, to having a better future for people, we must return
politics to the people, increase democracy, return
the impact of individuals in the economy,
and we must end the power of the banks and wall street....
these are three goals in which we improve the lives of
all of all people...

how do we make this happen?

with an investigation into our values and beliefs..
for we have been indoctrinated with values/beliefs
that actively harm us... to think of ourselves as
only as workers, producers and consumers...
the average person has no other value in the modern world...

a reevaluation of values into what values/beliefs we actually do
hold and not the values/beliefs we have been indoctrinated with...
we passionately believe in capitalism and the values of the
corporation because we have been indoctrinated with that
since childhood....

what future do you want, individually and collectively?
we have to decide that....and the best way to achieve that
is by self-reflection into what it means to be human...
are we "homo economicus" or are we "homo ergaster"
in which we are beings that are "working with tools"
or do we have a much higher ceiling?

is it possible that we have vastly underestimated what
it means to be human? we don't seek out what is possible
for us to reach, but we simple accept some preconceptions
about what we are...we are not simple beings that work
or use tools or even prays... we are much more than that...
but our ism's, our ideologies, our social, political and
economic system don't believe in us being anything more
then what we have been indoctrinated with...
as workers, as producers, as consumers.....

our very survival as human beings requires us, no, demands
us to expand what it means to be human...
we are not just beings who work or being who handles tools,
but we are something more than that.... we are beings
that can engage with what is possible for us...
the future requires us to become who we are...
which is beings that is more than simple tool creatures,
but beings that can decide our own fate... with
thoughts and actions that come from us, not our
corporate overlords.. who only want workers, consumers
and producers... nothing more is needed in our modern world....

in other words, to become self-determined.. to decide our own
future, our own fate and our own rules/laws....
and that can only happen if we begin the act of a reevaluation of
values...... what is really and truly important to us?
making money? or being part of a system that has no
interest in me progressing or becoming something other
that a worker, producer or consumer? in proclaiming my
existence as something greater than what is offered
today, I am declaring that I have value other than
being a consumer, producer or worker...

and in this modern age of conforming and being part of the crowd,
I am radically calling for us to walk away from our modern systems,
politically, socially and economically...

to what Kropotkin? to walk away means we are walking towards
something, what is that? to revaluate what it means to
be human... to become human, and not animal/human
or even animal, as our modern systems require us to do.....
to just have value as a worker, consumer, or producer,
means we are nothing more than animals...
for we are existing as animals in our
social, political and economic systems...
( if monkey ever learn to count out change, I am out
of job.. I would be replaced by monkeys in days)
or if I am replaced by a machine, that means my job
has no human value.. if a machine can do what I do,
what is the point of being human in that job?

let us begin the path into the future by a having jobs that
can only be done by humans... that we have value as a human
being, not as a consumer or producer or a worker...and this
is lacking in todays world... we are thought of in terms of
millions of us, and not as an individual with value and dignity....

my sole value is being considered as part of millions of people,
as workers, or consumers or producers, as a number,
as a mass society...

Kropotkin, you also want us to
be a collective? how do you work that out?

by rethinking what it means to be human...I have both individual,
value, by just being Kropotkin and I have value as a part of
the social, economic and political world we live in....
as you have value... we need to reinvest ourselves
into beings with value... and that comes with a reevaluation of
values...

it is a complicated task before us, but not an impossible task...
we can do this.... what does it mean to be human given the
loss of thinking of ourselves as having value.... which is what
has happened in our modern world... we are indoctrinated into
thinking we have no value unless we are consumers or
producers or workers.... and I say unto you, we have more, much
more value than what we can buy or produce....
so the trick is to find that value by a reevaluation of values...

Kropotkin

so what does it mean to be human?
do we really only have value if we are
consumers, workers or producers?
if the human being only value is to
be a consumer, worker or producer,
then what does that say about us?

I believe the value of being human is far greater
than just working or consuming, that make me a radical...
for I do not accept the current modern conception of
what it means to be human....

that we only have value within the very narrow confines of
capitalism... that to find my place in the universe requires
me to conform to the narrow path of working, consuming
or producing....or do we have other possibilities of being human?

a man who just thinks about what it means to be human,
has no value in America today because it doesn't create
wealth or profits for corporate America....
and thus much of what human beings actually must
have, as understood by Maslow, is denied or rejected
by our state/society/media...

we not only have physical/bodily needs of food, water, shelter,
education and health care, but we also have psychological needs
of esteem, of belonging, of love, of safety/security...
these psychological needs are not only not met by
our modern-day ism's, but are in fact denied by our modern
day corporation... we are not, in our workplace, given
any chance to met these psychological needs...
to find love or belonging or esteem is greatly discouraged
by our modern corporations... we are simply told what to do
and seek out profits, money... that is our only goal in today's
modern corporate world...

the basic human psychology needs of ours are denied and
rejected by corporate America.... that is, in part,
why we are so fucked up mentally in this world...
much of the very important part of being human, of finding
love, esteem, belonging, safety/security is not only denied
but is actively rejected in our modern world....
as antithetical to achieving the primary goal of existence,
which is to make profits and make money...
in making money, the primary psychological needs of
love and esteem and a sense of belonging are rejected because
they don't make profits/money... seeking love prevents us from
making a profit and that is against the very value of corporate
America.....the only goal worth achieving in our modern day
world/society/state is achieving wealth.. the values that make
us human, love, esteem, safety/security, a sense of belonging,
are rejected as unnecessary by our modern corporate world...

the very values that make life worth living are rejected
as not needed by our modern corporate world... and that
is why we have mass murder and vast problems with drugs
and alcohol.. the very thing that makes us human is denied
and rejected by the value of corporate America....
and that value is money/profits... all other values need
not apply...

so to recap, we are denied our psychological needs
and we are denied our biological needs by corporate
America... and you might wonder why people are so
uninvolved in their lives... because if your bodily needs
are not being met and your psychological needs are not
being met, in modern day America, why bother?
what is the point of existence if none of your needs are
not being met?

that is the question... how do we return to meeting our needs,
both physical and psychological?

that becomes the question, how do we go from here, the modern
corporate denial of what it means to be human, to
rethinking our values and making meeting those physical
and emotional needs the important thing?

how do we get from here to there?
that is what we should be engaged with, not
about making money or improving our GDP, but
about meeting our basic needs of being human....

Kropotkin

so let us dig deeper into corporate values...

so what is the point of making money?
simply put, the point of making money is
to make more money... it has no other value...
and what the other trinkets of modern day
America? that of seeking fame, power, material possessions?

what is the end goal of those trinkets? only the trinkets
themselves... seeking fame only brings about more fame,
it has no other goal or final point... and the same goes
for the other trinkets, power only seeks more power,
one can have some power or no power or all power,
but it has no other goal....and the same goes for
material possessions.... it has no other goal outside
of achieving more material possessions... there is no endgame
or final point in the achievements of modern day America...

and what of achieving the needs of body, mind, emotions?
within achieving goals like esteem or a sense of belonging,
we can achieve more goals...

so Kropotkin, what happens if we all achieve our goals,
both bodily and psychologically? we are not just achieving
more of the same, we are moving forward... for when we
achieve our bodily and psychological needs, we can
reach other goals... in other words, we will see more
Goethe's and Shakespear's and creative people like this..
and why? for acts of creation requires us to have our
bodily and psychological needs met....if Goethe had
to work for a living say, being a lawyer or being a doctor,
would he have been one of the most creative people
to have ever lived? NO... quite simply no, because
how can we be creative if we are forced to engage in
the daily search for money, food, water, love, a sense of
belonging? for creativity requires us to have leisure,
from the daily pursuit of the trinkets of modern day life....

I would suggest that one of the points of existence is
to engage in a search for ART or other creative activities...
that is a "higher" form of existence than just having to work
for a living...seeking aesthetics values, seeking beauty is
a much more suitable reason for existence than just
seeking the basics required to simply exist....
for that is what animals do, they just exists to
seek out the bodily needs, nothing more...
and we are much more than just animals...
we are becoming human and that requires us
to seek out more than just our bodily needs....

for the goal of existence isn't to become wealthy or to be famous
or to have several houses, no, the goal of existence is to engage
in some sort of creative activity like painting or writing.....
to produce something that isn't about making money...
we human beings are creators of values and we express
ourselves... look at other human beings... the need to express
oneself is very strong in human beings.. and we can express
ourselves in a variety of ways, but not if we are engaged
in a daily struggle to eat or to have an education or health care....
or if we pursue the other trinkets of existence, fame, power,
material possessions... they only lead us to a continuation of
themselves...seeking fame only allows us to seek fame
and seeking wealth only allow us more of the same....
they have no final goal or purpose....

but seeking to create, that is its own goal and purpose..
to express ourselves in some manner....as we do naturally...

but most here will just deny my points and that is because
they haven't escaped their childhood indoctrinations...
but what is the point of existence if, if we remove the basic
seeking out of our bodily and psychological needs?

for most people, they can't see past the needs of the body/
psychological we have.... to seek out more than just
food, water, shelter, education, love, esteem
and a sense of belonging?

what happens if that is actually what we are looking for..
not just bodily/psychological needs but
go beyond that into meeting our need for expression...
in the act of creating something of value within ART or
writing or thinking?

what happens if we go beyond just the seeking of
our biological and social and psychological needs
into meeting our need for expression....

what lays beyond just expressing ourselves?
who knows, we haven't gone that far yet...
and maybe we should try....

Kropotkin

The average person has never had a large involvement, influence or relevance.

Small groups have always had a disproportionate influence, whether is was the aristocracy, the high ranking party members or some inner circle.

Democracy doesn't give the average person much influence because he/she has only one vote among millions of votes.

"Return back being democracies" is an illusion. If one looks at universal suffrage (which is the right to vote), one notices that much of it dates back to 20th century and some of it dates back to the middle of the 19th century. Even the USA didn't have male suffrage until 1856. We know about women not being able to vote but even many men were not able to vote until the last century. Democracy was never as wonderful and fair as we imagine it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

Let's not make capitalism the cause of all our problems. Is Africa poor because it practices American style capitalism? No, capitalism practiced by western countries is one small factor.

Africa is considered the poorest continent on Earth. Almost every second person living in the states of sub-Saharan Africa lives below the poverty line. Particularly affected by poverty in Africa are the weakest members of society, their children and women.

POVERTY IN AFRICA - CAUSES

The extreme poverty in Africa has many reasons, some of which are closely linked. Key causes of poverty in Africa and the suffering of millions of people include:

GROWTH OF POPULATION

Population growth on the African continent is rapid, despite numerous prevention and education campaigns. Developmental success and economic growth cannot keep pace with this. The result: more and more Africans live in poverty. According to a recent study by UNICEF, the population of Africa will double by 2050 to two billion people.

WAR AND CRISES

Of the world's 20 war-related conflicts in 2013, 11 alone were fought on the African continent - all in sub-Saharan Africa. This includes the wars in Sudan and South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. In the crisis regions, agricultural production usually comes to a standstill. Many people flee, are forcibly expelled from their homes and are dependent on outside help. Poverty in Africa is increasing as a result of these wars.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

The African continent has been suffering more and more from climate change in recent decades: devastating floods and extraordinary drought periods lead to crop failures. The consequences are regular hunger crises and famine in Africa. Particularly affected are East Africa and the Sahel region.

ILLNESSES

Diseases such as AIDS, malaria or Ebola are the cause but also the result of poverty in Africa. Lack of education and inadequate medical care in many regions means that diseases spread faster and cannot be treated. The average life expectancy of the population is decreasing and the number of orphans is increasing. Loss of labor is particularly noticeable in agriculture and leads to reduced food production.

INADEQUATE AGRICULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Roads, wells, irrigation systems, storage facilities, agricultural machinery - in many regions of Africa, agriculture lacks both infrastructure and expertise. That's why local self-help is so important in helping to fight poverty in Africa.

UNJUST TRADE STRUCTURES

Rich countries create unjust trading structures by shielding their markets with high agricultural tariffs and heavily subsidizing their own agriculture. This slows down the development of agriculture on the African continent, causing it to suffer from the outset. The governments of the U.S., the countries of Europe and other prosperous states thus contribute to poverty in Africa with their policies.

https://www.sos-usa.org/about-us/where- ... -in-africa

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 7:18 pm The average person has never had a large involvement, influence or relevance.

Small groups have always had a disproportionate influence, whether is was the aristocracy, the high ranking party members or some inner circle.

Democracy doesn't give the average person much influence because he/she has only one vote among millions of votes.

"Return back being democracies" is an illusion. If one looks at universal suffrage (which is the right to vote), one notices that much of it dates back to 20th century and some of it dates back to the middle of the 19th century. Even the USA didn't have male suffrage until 1856. We know about women not being able to vote but even many men were not able to vote until the last century. Democracy was never as wonderful and fair as we imagine it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

Let's not make capitalism the cause of all our problems. Is Africa poor because it practices American style capitalism? No, capitalism practiced by western countries is one small factor.

Africa is considered the poorest continent on Earth. Almost every second person living in the states of sub-Saharan Africa lives below the poverty line. Particularly affected by poverty in Africa are the weakest members of society, their children and women.

POVERTY IN AFRICA - CAUSES

The extreme poverty in Africa has many reasons, some of which are closely linked. Key causes of poverty in Africa and the suffering of millions of people include:

GROWTH OF POPULATION

Population growth on the African continent is rapid, despite numerous prevention and education campaigns. Developmental success and economic growth cannot keep pace with this. The result: more and more Africans live in poverty. According to a recent study by UNICEF, the population of Africa will double by 2050 to two billion people.

WAR AND CRISES

Of the world's 20 war-related conflicts in 2013, 11 alone were fought on the African continent - all in sub-Saharan Africa. This includes the wars in Sudan and South Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. In the crisis regions, agricultural production usually comes to a standstill. Many people flee, are forcibly expelled from their homes and are dependent on outside help. Poverty in Africa is increasing as a result of these wars.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

The African continent has been suffering more and more from climate change in recent decades: devastating floods and extraordinary drought periods lead to crop failures. The consequences are regular hunger crises and famine in Africa. Particularly affected are East Africa and the Sahel region.

ILLNESSES

Diseases such as AIDS, malaria or Ebola are the cause but also the result of poverty in Africa. Lack of education and inadequate medical care in many regions means that diseases spread faster and cannot be treated. The average life expectancy of the population is decreasing and the number of orphans is increasing. Loss of labor is particularly noticeable in agriculture and leads to reduced food production.

INADEQUATE AGRICULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Roads, wells, irrigation systems, storage facilities, agricultural machinery - in many regions of Africa, agriculture lacks both infrastructure and expertise. That's why local self-help is so important in helping to fight poverty in Africa.

UNJUST TRADE STRUCTURES

Rich countries create unjust trading structures by shielding their markets with high agricultural tariffs and heavily subsidizing their own agriculture. This slows down the development of agriculture on the African continent, causing it to suffer from the outset. The governments of the U.S., the countries of Europe and other prosperous states thus contribute to poverty in Africa with their policies.

https://www.sos-usa.org/about-us/where- ... -in-africa

K: you are trying to make an argument about Africa that implies that
Africa is one state.. it is in fact, 54 countries with an area that is
larger than America... and with countries that are close to first world
countries.... like Egypt, Morrocco, South Africa and Algeria that are fairly
advance countries... and you are adding in countries that are dirt poor..
that are countries you described... but you must not mix up the two,
as you did... it is like saying that California is like Mississippi..
or London is like Edinburgh... trust me, it ain't... and you can't
even compare the two...just like you can't compare,
say Rwanda to Morocco... to turn Africa into one situation gives
us an unfair comparison within Africa itself....not to mention
it doesn't give us any real information because Africa isn't
one monolith country....

Kropotkin

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 7:18 pm

If we look at Peter's response to this post we see him reducing your entire post to a false generalization about Africa.
He can generalize about capitalism and say what it is, period, but you can't note any general patterns about issues in Africa.
There's no need to respond to any issues you raised because he found a way to seemingly dismiss they entire thing even though the criterion he uses could easily be aimed at his OP.

K: you are trying to make an argument about Africa that implies that
Africa is one state.. it is in fact, 54 countries with an area that is
larger than America... and with countries that are close to first world
countries.... like Egypt, Morrocco, South Africa and Algeria that are fairly
advance countries... and you are adding in countries that are dirt poor..
that are countries you described... but you must not mix up the two,
as you did... it is like saying that California is like Mississippi..
or London is like Edinburgh... trust me, it ain't... and you can't
even compare the two...just like you can't compare,
say Rwanda to Morocco... to turn Africa into one situation gives
us an unfair comparison within Africa itself....not to mention
it doesn't give us any real information because Africa isn't
one monolith country...

my answer speaks for itself

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 2:30 pm K: you are trying to make an argument about Africa that implies that
Africa is one state.. it is in fact, 54 countries with an area that is
larger than America... and with countries that are close to first world
countries.... like Egypt, Morrocco, South Africa and Algeria that are fairly
advance countries... and you are adding in countries that are dirt poor..
that are countries you described... but you must not mix up the two,
as you did... it is like saying that California is like Mississippi..
or London is like Edinburgh... trust me, it ain't... and you can't
even compare the two...just like you can't compare,
say Rwanda to Morocco... to turn Africa into one situation gives
us an unfair comparison within Africa itself....not to mention
it doesn't give us any real information because Africa isn't
one monolith country...

my answer speaks for itself

Kropotkin

Sure, but it contradict other things you've said in this thread.
If you don't want to interact with other people's ideas, which includes in some way showing you understand the point they are making, then don't. It's ok. You can be a blog poster in a forum - that is a place where people discuss ideas. But regardless of what a forum is, there's room for lecturers. Pretend responses, facile acts of dismissing, that's wasting your time and other people's time. They'll come and read your non-responses, recognize them for what they are and as wasted time.

It isnt' always easy to interact with the thoughts of other people. To point out the specific points one is responding to - which also makes it clear what you aren't responding to. It can be frustrating. One has to think about what the other person said and find a way to justify what they are disagreeing with, if they are. It requires flexibility in communication, the ability to rephrase, find new justification or to justify something one has asserted for the first time. It can be troublesome. One can be right, but realize there were skipped steps or poor writing or one isn't as sure about one's own position. More thinking, potential cognitive dissonance, finding out how to understand other perspectives in a nuanced way are all things that take effort.

You seem uninterested in that kind of effort. Fine.
Just lecture and skip the pretend engagement with the ideas of others.

Or not. You're free to continue, obviously.

and to continue on....

we in the west, Europe and America, have had
almost 200 years of experience with capitalism...

we can make some generalizations about an experiment
that has lasted, in the west, almost 200 years...
that Marx was right... he quite correctly said that
Capitalism will end badly... it has vast highs and lows
that will get worse in time and that the wealth will
be consolidated into the hands of a few...

Income inequality has been an issue for civilizations
since Greece and Rome and most likely was an issue before
that but we lack the historical record for that information....
the key thing about any organization or system is that
an organization or system requires balance to maintain
itself...the human body for example, begins to fail when
it cannot maintain its own balance...for example,
a rise in body temperature is a system out of balance..
or a cold is the system trying to maintain balance...
and one of the definitions of biological balance is

Biological balance refers to the interrelationships among
organisms, including the structure of food webs and the ability
of ecological systems to sustain themselves over time...
balance is a dynamic characteristic rather than a fixed state...

that if we remove or add something to a system, it changes
the dynamics of a system, changes the balance and that
system becomes at risk...

income inequality changes the balance between groups of
people within a system... and that change, threaten
the balance between groups....

or to say it differently, one small group having a vast amount
of wealth and the rest of the population having little or no wealth,
changes the balance within a system/society/state....

one reason why America was so successful from its birth
to the civil war, was that there was no wealthy class in
America until the Civil War... Henry Adams in his autobiography,
speaks of a relative who became the first person in America
to become a millionaire, in 1840... that is 20 years before the Civil war
which created hundreds of millionaires...and you can point
out that is the moment that created the rise of the working class
struggle to organize... Unions began to grow after the civil war
and the rise of the millionaire class...the rise of the extreme
wealthy class in America has caused and continue to cause
instability and is the root of many of our problems today...

the loss of democracy, bought and paid for the wealthy..
both the congressional and legislative branches in America
has been bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers for example...
the states congressional and legislative branches work for
the wealthy, not anybody else... and that has lead to the apathy
and distrust of the government and its institutions,
by many people in America... which has led to the rise of
the MAGA crowd for example.. and the ensuing problems
they have created... if America is to collapse, it will be, in part,
to the vast difference in wealth that exists in America today...
(with 500 people owning more wealth than half the world population)
and that wealth/income inequality also threatens Europe
and the industrial countries in Asia...

if we are to survive as a nation, as a species, as a civilization
and possible as a species, we need to address this income inequality
before it destroys us...

that is one example of where we are and where we need to be...
we need to reduce income inequality before it destroys us...

Kropotkin

Of course both what is called democracy and capitalism have changed over that time. We talk about capitalism as if it has one form, but it has many.
Corporate charters could be revoked in the 1800s. That isn't on the table now.
Banks create money out of nothing and this is also not and orginal facet of US capitalism.

There are many facets of current capitalism in the US that are different from the way it was then.

When people talk about capitalism it would be good to talk about which version do they want consider real?
Do you include in your model of capitalism:
1) Anti-trust regulations - should the formation of monopolies be regulated and related how much government resources should go into copywrite and patent enforcement or is that a restriction of freedom and how does this get resolved internationally?
2) fiat fractional reserve banking - and if so, how do you see government both enforcing and regulating this? IOW this is a government granted extra power given to some people. You need government to give them the power to make money out of nothing and be able to lend it and demand it back - court systems and laws to enforce this and also the mechanism to create money out of nothing to give it to people.
3) Shareholder centered capitalism - iow, there was a large shift over recent decades to making management compensation based on short term shareholder gains. This is in tremendous contrast to corporate priorities in the 40s - 70s. Do you think this is a good change, a bad one, one that should be regulated and how.
4) Stock markets
5) Derivatives and other making money without producing things or even supporting the production of things. The finacialization of capitalism. IOW over recent decades the amount of money made via production has reduced and the amount of money made through creative investment has increased. Even large companies that used to make the vast bulk of their money via production/services now have a much higher percentage of income via creative investment.
6) Are you for Glass–Steagall type legislation and separation in finance or not? Should there be any limits on this sector? If so, which ones?
7) Corporations were the first globalists. Should the government curtail this in any way? Should corporations be allowed to interfere with democracy in other nations and through what means? Hands off completely, partly, some regulation, none?
What limits, if any, would you put on money controlling politicians? Issues surrounding lobbying, revolving door in oversight, campaign finance, bribes, and, in its own category......
9) generation of foreign policy?
10) What government oversight over various industries, if any? Should the government have the power to regulate certain industries - food industries, industries using potentially dangerous chemicals, etc.? Is it assumed that the market will eliminate, at least in the long run, companies that do not engage in safe or responsible practices? How do we prevent control of industry control of its own oversight, if one believes there should be some oversight?
11) Originally corporate charters, since they grant people priviledges other people do not have and these priviledges are government enforced, were withdrawn from companies that broke the law, for example, or misued their charters. That practice ended. The nation's founders were well aware that corporate entities were a threat to democracy and other facets of what they considered national health and had in place ways to restrain and even revoke the charters of problematic companies. This is not longer a practice. Should it be? Should there be a discussion about why the conservative practice of mainting this and other traditions was ended?
12) what regulation of Surveillance capitalism (as opposed to government surveillance) should there be, if any?Ph
13) Is media a special case? By this I mean, should centralized control be avoided? How should government regulate media, if at all? How does government regulate things like the commons involved in radio frequencies? Or is this to simply be market driven?


If we look at the OP PK does exactly what he is accusing Phyllo of doing: he generalizes broadly and simply about capitalism as if it is one thing. Then, oddly, he mentions that it has different forms, as if he hadn't just asserted the whole mass of it has those qualities he assigns to capitalism.

Here my point is that capitalism can be handled in variety of ways. In fact the list of above questions could more easily be aimed at a defender of capitalism. But the point is the same. Most people assume capitalism is capitalism. So, any benefits or problems can be generalized. But there are many possible capitalisms.

I personally don't know if they work or don't or what effects there are. I would, however, want us to start to question some of the facets of modern US capitalism in that list of questions.

And in some ways European Capitalism is better than US capitalism. On the other hand, Europe will eat the planet, just a bit slower. And they are busy transferring money towards the rich right now.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 3:04 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 2:30 pm K: you are trying to make an argument about Africa that implies that
Africa is one state.. it is in fact, 54 countries with an area that is
larger than America... and with countries that are close to first world
countries.... like Egypt, Morrocco, South Africa and Algeria that are fairly
advance countries... and you are adding in countries that are dirt poor..
that are countries you described... but you must not mix up the two,
as you did... it is like saying that California is like Mississippi..
or London is like Edinburgh... trust me, it ain't... and you can't
even compare the two...just like you can't compare,
say Rwanda to Morocco... to turn Africa into one situation gives
us an unfair comparison within Africa itself....not to mention
it doesn't give us any real information because Africa isn't
one monolith country...

my answer speaks for itself

Kropotkin

Sure, but it contradict other things you've said in this thread.
If you don't want to interact with other people's ideas, which includes in some way showing you understand the point they are making, then don't. It's ok. You can be a blog poster in a forum - that is a place where people discuss ideas. But regardless of what a forum is, there's room for lecturers. Pretend responses, facile acts of dismissing, that's wasting your time and other people's time. They'll come and read your non-responses, recognize them for what they are and as wasted time.

It isnt' always easy to interact with the thoughts of other people. To point out the specific points one is responding to - which also makes it clear what you aren't responding to. It can be frustrating. One has to think about what the other person said and find a way to justify what they are disagreeing with, if they are. It requires flexibility in communication, the ability to rephrase, find new justification or to justify something one has asserted for the first time. It can be troublesome. One can be right, but realize there were skipped steps or poor writing or one isn't as sure about one's own position. More thinking, potential cognitive dissonance, finding out how to understand other perspectives in a nuanced way are all things that take effort.

You seem uninterested in that kind of effort. Fine.
Just lecture and skip the pretend engagement with the ideas of others.

Or not. You're free to continue, obviously.

K: ok, I am going to slow this down so that you all may understand...
within the west, especially America, capitalism is pretty much
one thing.. that there isn't any type of stages or different aspects
of capitalism in the west.. but IN AFRICA, different countries
are in different stages of capitalism...you can't make a overall
comparison of capitalism with different countries being
in different places in regards to capitalism
you can't compare what capitalism is doing in Egypt or
what it is doing in say, Keyna because they are in different
stages of capitalism...you can't compare apples to oranges...
just as you can't compare the capitalism in Uganda with
the capitalism in America because they are in different stages...

capitalism is not a fixed, set system, it is a dynamic,
every changing, fluid system...both in America and in Africa
because the environments are different in both...and in fact,
here in the U.S, we have capitalism moving at different speeds...
here in California, we have a very advance capitalism system
and in say, Mississippi, it is not as advanced.. and the proof
lies in the vastly different GDP of both states...

(one of the problems that exists within California,
as I have lived here for 45 years, is that the income inequality
in the state has grown to the point, especially in San Francisco,
that there are but two classes in S.F. the very wealthy
and the rest, who are very poor.. this has create vast
problem within the city.. a moderation or a balance between
the wealthy and the rest of us would alleviate many of the problems
we face in this state and as usual, problems that strike California,
will hit the rest of country at some point.. the average home price in
S.F is $1.4 Million... and who exactly can afford that?)

you can't look at capitalism as a monolithic structure....
it is an ever changing, moving target that
never stays the same and looks different in different states
and in different countries...

Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 3:27 pm K: ok, I am going to slow this down so that you all may understand...
within the west, especially America, capitalism is pretty much
one thing..

No, let me slow this down so you can understand: you are precisely contradicting what you said about Europe vs. America in your OP.

that there isn't any type of stages or different aspects
of capitalism in the west..

but IN AFRICA, different countries
are in different stages of capitalism...you can't make a overall
comparison of capitalism with different countries being
in different places in regards to capitalism
you can't compare what capitalism is doing in Egypt or
what it is doing in say, Keyna because they are in different
stages of capitalism...you can't compare apples to oranges...
just as you can't compare the capitalism in Uganda with
the capitalism in America because they are in different stages..

And this contradicts the other thing you said in the OP where you just blanket condemned capitalism as it if was one thing, period. IOW [going slow] you contradicted yourself within the OP. Then later things you said contradicted different parts of the OP.

(one of the problems that exists within California,
as I have lived here for 45 years, is that the income inequality
in the state has grown to the point, especially in San Francisco,
that there are but two classes in S.F. the very wealthy
and the rest, who are very poor.. this has create vast
problem within the city.. a moderation or a balance between
the wealthy and the rest of us would alleviate many of the problems
we face in this state and as usual, problems that strike California,
will hit the rest of country at some point.. the average home price in
S.F is $1.4 Million... and who exactly can afford that?)

Sure, terrible stuff. Nothing that contradicts what I said. I know there are horrible things going on under all the current forms of capitalism.

you can't look at capitalism as a monolithic structure....

Which was precisely what I talked about above. It's you who generalized about capitalism in your OP.


If that wasn't slow enough, let me know.

Peter Kropotkin is on track and to my reckoning has done his homework. Agent Smith bows. However, I've noticed this particular style of analysis you adopt has become a signature of sorts, identifying a breed of popular philosophers; I suppose we're all the same, if not in ability, at least with respect to boat-floating stuff. I've also realized that people have realized such things as I've mentioned in the previous sentences. I can only hope there's a good bar at the enda this road even though I don't drink.

Deus Magnus Est, si señor/señoritas?

now to continue on... (any economic questions,
refer back to my "capitalism and you" thread)

the question for me isn't about what happened in the past
or how should/why we should make some sort of return
to the past... the very MAGA slogan is about the past and
some attempt to return to it...

MAGA: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN...

to return to the past.. but I ask, which past? the past
in which we engaged in genocide of the American Indian,
or where we had blacks as slaves or had a bloody civil war?
the question of idolizing the past, as the conservative does,
creates the issue of which part of our past is actually worth
idolizing? Do they want to return to the Great Depression?
if you want to "make America great again" you have to lay out,
in detail, which part of the past and why is that past worth reliving?
a past where cotton is king? that shit ain't happening again...
that ship has sailed and to worship it is to worship a long
gone past...

liberals set their sights on the future, but that has other problems..
and most of those problems revolve around the fear that
Americans have and have had since 9/11...
when American history is written in a few decades, 9/11 will be
prominent listing because of the fear it created in America...
and because of the fear it created, the terrorist of 9/11
have already won... terror is the use of violence to create fear..
and 9/11 did exactly that...a good deal of Americans now live in fear
of many things including terrorism... fears we did not have before
9/11.. recall that I was 42 in 2001, I was an middle age man....
I have lived through the 70's, 80's, 90's and fear wasn't the part
of life that it has been since 9/11....and conservatives use that
fear to build up power and get people to vote for them....
listen to the IQ45 convention speech in 2016.. it was a speech
about how all the major cities were under fire and many were
burned down due to the dem's and liberals...
and that entire fear speech was not possible before 9/11...
(fear tactics still in use today)

but as Roosevelt noted, that "all we have to fear, is fear itself"...
it isn't the reality of life but our fear that has driven us to
elect a buffoon like IQ45....IQ45 Rhetoric only works in a fear
base society... his fear tactics only work when people are afraid..
and by losing one's fear, one rises above that sort of fear rhetoric...
but the old and weak, they need to be protected and it sounds good
to them...and those are the people most impressed by IQ45.. the weak
and powerless....if you are weak and powerless, you are
susceptible to fear tactics...and so the answer is simple...
not bow down to fear......look to the future.... not the past...
a past that cannot be recreated, no matter how hard we try....
and that is why liberals are disliked.. because we sing praises
of the future and we strive to make a future, not lust over
a past that is long dead...

hence, we given a choice, between past, present or future, I would
always pick the future, and a conservative will always choose the past....
and who is right? a long dead, unrecoverable past or a possible future that
only needs to be reached for? The answer is crystal clear to me,
but if you pause, if you pause, perhaps you are more afraid of what
the future might hold, and you might be held captive by the past...
like conservatives are today.....

pick a timeline... past, present or future.. and I will always pick
the future...what will you choose?

Kropotkin