Time to overhaul the world order

Post Reply New Topic

It is time to overhaul global capitalism, before global capitalism overhauls the world.

Why?

There are many reasons, but they could be summed up in two categories, social and ecological (both of those categories could also be divided between one another into "egoistic" and "altruistic". What I am going to say, is that it is the long-term interest for the 98% of humanity who aren't a part of the elite today to strive to replace the current world order with another system (this thread would not discuss what this kind of system would be, even though it is evident it should be sustainable in both social and ecological terms).

In various countries, the political centre tends to move in accordance with the status quo and the balance of power in society. If we compare the United States with a European country for example, the Democratic Party in a European context would be considered rightist, while almost any given European conservative party in the United States would be considered left-wing extremist. Thus, political labels are really meaningless.



Usually, there is a division between left-wing and right-wing ideologies, where the dividing factor usually is the view on how the resources of a given society should be distributed. That has been the case in all historical societies, since most historical societies has been characterised by a wealth disparity between small minorities who in different ways control the natural resources and infrastructure, and the vast majority who are forced to work for the first group in order to gain the crumbs of the table. Most societies have also built themselves on a concept of justice where it is openly or hiddenly conceded that the state or other governing structures primarily exist in order to defend the resource base for the affluent minority. It could be discussed whether such an order is justifiable by human nature or by the "virtue" of the elite - that discussion is a wholly other matter.

In this thread, I am not focusing on that, since justice is a theoretical concept which anyone with a quick tongue and slimy brain could wield as a weapon to justify anything and everything, exemplified by the radically differing concepts of justice circulating around the world.

Instead, I will state that I will motivate my opposition to the system by the vice of its very damaging effects on human life and on all life on planet Earth. That means that instead of focusing on justice, I am focusing on the cause, purpose and effects of various strategies in order to survive and thrive, and my claim is that the current strategy is flawed in two very important areas, namely social and ecological sustainability.

We live in a world where 1% of the population are controlling 40% of the resource base, where one billion people are malnourished despite that enough food is produced in order to sustain at least the double with today's methods (and if we increased the efficiency of the food production, by for example abolishing the livestock industry, we could probably feed several billions more).

The vast majority of people are forced to dedicate most of their lives to boring, mundane tasks without any higher purpose, like flipping burgers on MacDonalds or selling sex toys through phone salesmanship in order to gain access to the resources they need to sustain themselves.

Cell-phones and electronic gears are produced in order to be replaced quickly so that industries could increase their profit margins. Entire ecosystems are destroyed in order to give space for monocultures to produce products which are transported to the supermarkets of the first world, while the farmers earlier dependent on farming diverse crops in those areas are bought out after corporations have destroyed their sweetwater reserves, to dwell in the ever-growing slums of the third world.

At the current rate, resources are depleted faster than the Earth could replace them. The capitalist system is dependent on growth, for the sake of growth itself. If not enough products are produced, then the industries will be forced to lay off people, which means even less consumption and production. Like a shark, the global economy is forced to constantly swim forward in order to survive, and like a frog, it needs to constantly grow. If this trend isn't broken, the majority of the ecosystems would have collapsed between 2050 and 2100.

Is that really worthy of humanity? Should really the primitive urge of the ape brain to amass resources, wealth and power triumph over our curiousity, over our will to explore the universe, to build a world where everyone could feel valued, safe and free and where the resources are managed intelligently?

For people who are not themselves members of elite, it is in their obvious self-interest to replace the current system.

Firstly, you might want to keep capitalism because it is the A) status quo and you fear change, or B) because you aspire to one day become a part of the ruling elite.

A) Everything always is in a state of transformation. To ossify the social and economic systems will actually often produce more chaos than a radical change, especially as the trends today are pointing towards a state of being where most of humanity will literally have to fight for their very survival.

B) How enviable is the position of the captain or first mate of a ship which has hit an iceberg? In a world with collapsed eco-systems, you will have to either become a warlord yourself or to pay warlords to protect your private property.

One characteristic of the current, capitalist system, is it's huge reliance on surface - namely that it promotes people who are ambitious, socially skilled and keenly aware of consumer trends. This means that the elite in general tends to consist of people with psychopatic traits - people who foremost think not on what is good for the population, but what is good for themselves and their interests.

In a new world, where resources are intelligently managed, the managers must be civil servants who aren't appointed by popularity or their social skills, but by their actual character and their technical skills. In short, people who don't care about their popularity, about gossip or about enriching themselves, are unable to lie, have a deep passion for their areas of expertise and live to attain perfection within it, and are tuned towards the management of technology rather than the management of people.

The only question is: Where to find such people?

very well thought out and written.
i assume you're young and have hope for the future. i'm neither. i'm old and have given up hope.
you live in? australia? don't know. i'm an american. in the u.s.a. we have an ongoing problem when it comes to the environment/resources. when ron regean ruled, he appointed an interior director named james watt. watt said, honest-he said this-that why worry about the environment, jesus is coming soon.

that has been the policy since. take it, kill it, use it like there's no tomorrow, cause 'JESUS! is coming'.

george bush 43 mentioned that in a couple of interviews he gave. you would think obama might change the policy but he is terrified of the religious right.

all i can do is cry. look at the destruction of the amazon rain forest. on one trip to peru, we were on the amazon going south when we had a day's delay due to the river being clogged and impassable with logs. here i am, crying again.

fight the good fight grasshopper. don't give up. you can fight for both of us.

i find it is not possible to guess which topics will invite lots of discussion. maybe if you could work lady gaga into the title someway?

The key is to form a social movement with a clear aim, and then somehow give that social movement access to resources. People need to organise themselves, because the ruling establishment would probably either lead us all to chaos in the future, or institute some kind of despotism where the people are constantly punished for the ecological transgressions of the elite. In every case, they will always be more engulfed in the interests of their corporate and financial puppet masters than the interests of the average human being.

i have just been warned by rulers of w.p. to watch what i write. when i'm attacked by someone, i tend to fight back, but not allowed here. those are the rules so i better go away for a bit.( about animal rights and such).......

so, i have not just stopped responding to what you write because of what you write. i just need to vanish for awhile.

be calm.

Mind I'm not attacking you.

I simply never think defeatism is the key.

Well.... probably not. You have to understand that such an effort would likely result in a war of epic proportions. Here are the reasons:
1) Most people in developed nations actually benefit from the current order. The world's GDP per capita is around 9000 dollars/yr, but this is significantly less than the salaries of even the poorest people in developed nations. It is highly questionable whether they'd benefit from losing all of this money, and it is even more questionable that any restructuring of the world will work as much in the favor of the currently rich first world citizens as they'd want.
2) We have to have another social order as a real possibility. One issue is that many people actually believe that the current economic system is the only basic possibility due to the complexities of economic planning.
3) The rich also have the most powerful toys. They could easily devastate the poorer people just with advanced technological equipment, especially given that not all of that "98%" would defect even if it was in their best interests, and it easily could be in their best interests to side with the rich as mercenaries if a lot of others are siding against them.


I am not even sure. Most people who make this argument assume that the only way for growth to exist is increased pillaging of the environment. The issue is that for the most part, growth is really capital development, and improved ideas. The destruction caused by our methods tends not to be a necessary result, but a side effect: for instance, an efficient factory might create pollution or require an energy source that is environmentally disruptive.


Actually, you compare the last thousands of years to now, and we see that curiosity, exploration, and universal egalitarianism have profited most under capitalism. Even intelligent management of resources has profited most under capitalism in some sense.


No. You have to have a plan on how to replace the current system and what to replace it with. Unless those two questions are answered, the fear of death from the effort, or of the destruction of humanity from the effort is still relevant.


How is this different than any other world? All power is related to some degree of Machiavellian crassness. Heck, Machiavelli himself was noted as a commentator to rulers, and this was of a previous age's leadership. I doubt democracy and capitalism have made things so much worse.


People are the most important resource. In fact, any talk about managing natural resources, has the more onerous task of managing human resources first. Even further, managing groups requires social skills, as delegation, motivation, expressing ideas, and other things are really very important. What I really bet we get from these technocrats is a bunch of blind, obsessive, professors with pet ideas that they try to shove down and that their underlings don't really find themselves concerned with


I am not sure we really want them to do everything. I think that your effort in going this direction makes a huge number of assumptions, and I don't think these assumptions match reality. There are a number of people out there, and you can see them, that they are really kind of blind to their own assumptions, and the diversity of reality. They fit your model perfectly, but to use a popular TV series(the Big Bang Theory), they are Sheldons, and because of this, they cannot see past their own perception of their rectitude, nor can they motivate people to do as you ask, despite being unconcerned with popularity or social skills or lying, and perhaps in part because of this.

I'm sure that politicians, lobbyists, and corporations will jump right on that...just as soon as they all find a way to make another fortune off of it.
The middle class will support it as soon as they are all convinced it won't affect them financially, reward people that did not work as hard as them, or affect their individual liberty.

1) Actually, no. In the USA, the conditions of the general population have not improved since the 1970's, while in Europe the welfare systems are systematically dismantled. Exactly how much is financial prosperity worth if you are tied to your workplace like a serf? Moreover, since the wealthiest control approximately half the Earth's resources, the establishment of equal access to the fruits of production would improve the conditions for most people.

2) Proponents of a market system usually like to point out that there is only one alternative to a free or mixed market, and that is some kind of central planning. That assumption is wrong, and merely a dualistic trick to scare people away from even exploring if there are any alternatives. Perish the thought! Had the privilege of talking to a guy who was interested in the social initiative, and he was keenly aware of the perilous state of the Earth today - but when I said that the market had to go, he turned all pale. The free market is really having some traits of a messianic religion without a Messiah, which is nothing else than a mystic attitude really.

3) I am not talking about a revolutionary war, I am talking about building a movement which should strive to concentrate access to the resources and "toys" in it's own hands, in order to mount a challenge against the status quo.



Is it intelligent management of resources that one third of Borneo is made into oil palm plantations? Is it intelligent management of resources that cell-phones are made to be utilised during six months? Is it intelligent management of resources to produce iron ore in Brazil, ship it to Norway to make steel of it and then ship it back? An economist would answer yes, because it is creating the most profit. A natural scientist would answer no, since it doesn't make any sense apart from the perspective of a tiny group.

And yes, science has prospered under capitalism. But for what purpose? And couldn't it prosper more if society gave the scientists the technology and resources they needed to perform experiments, and then allowed them to play on without having to take any concerns for profitability?



And who has claimed I am not in possession of such a plan?



We don't have democracy today for the first thing. Democracy means that the people should be voting on laws, not elected legislators. If elected legislators are voting on laws, it is called republicanism, alternatively "liberal democracy".

In a system where there is no money, resources cannot be concentrated and there is no need for trade and exchange between individuals, and the management system is sufficiently de-centralised and governed by strong institutions, corruption could probably not flourish as it is doing today. It will still exist, of course, but in a very - very - low degree.



The first thing after the obvious needs are met which the new system should undertake should be to actively, persistently and consistently eliminate the industrial sector and the service sector by automatisation, shortening the hours of labour. Machines don't need motivating pep talks. Human beings could work within what is social and artistic.

The final product would look something like this: www.thevenusproject.com

The technical sector should only look that the sufficient resources are distributed to allow the social sector to flourish. The system should neither concern itself with how humans are living their lives, as long as they don't hurt one another or the ecosystems.



Such people would be important in order to manage the technical aspects of the movement, namely physical assets, and then to of course continue with such tasks when the new society is established (at which point the management of all physical resources would be managed by one, single service), while the task of recruitment, motivation, marketing, public relations and foreign policy would be conducted by socially skilled neurotypicals. Appointments though should not be made on a basis of popularity, but on a basis of skill.

Last edited by Dr_Horrible on 12 Oct 2010, 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

You have a point. Average incomes in inflation corrected dollars say to the base year 1960 have been flat since 1970. Many Americans have taken up the slack by taking extra jobs or sending the spouse out to work, but that only goes so far in raising household income. After that, it is going into debt. Once the debt becomes chronic, one is truly a wage slave. Or more accurately a debt indentured worker, rather than a chattel. The way the thing has gone down is that that the people who have increased their profits without sharing that increase with the workers have also helped put the workers in debt by lending them money. Credit cards have become a very big factor since 1970. They are the main way American workers have increased their consumption of goods and services with flat wages.

ruveyn

As a European prime minister once said: "The one who is in debt, is not free."

So true. He is an indentured agent. Doomed to keep on working until he fails from old age. Unfortunately he is working for someone else, not him/her self.

ruveyn

I already made my point. You didn't address the issues of current distribution. Most people would be made significantly poorer under a revolution because of the current level of wealth in existence. Most people in first world countries are above the mean, and thus would be made poorer.

Secondly, a proposal has to exist for an economic system has to be made first before one can talk about how "capitalism makes people tied to their workplace like a serf", the reason being that capitalism is actually very good historically at allowing people freedom on this issue.

"most people" does not necessarily mean 98% of the population. I already pointed out that world GDP is around 9000 dollars/yr. This means everyone in a first world country, and even a good number of people in developing nations won't benefit. They might not be the majority of people, but they'd be likely to have reduced incomes.

Finally, even if within first world nations, the incomes of the lowest aren't rising, it still seems the case that across the world, incomes are rising. http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/06/ ... g-won.html


Umm.... ok, that's nice. The issue is still a proposal that sets up incentives in a proper manner to make things work. Frankly, I really tend to doubt that "the free market is really having some traits of a messianic religion..." is the reason why people aren't seeing alternatives. While there are some attempted proposals of different ideas, often markets really are considered to be better.


Umm.... ok? That's not really a proposal, and at the moment, it really makes no sense to me.


Well, actually.... it really could be. Secondly, I don't really know what reason you are knocking economists for. You probably have only a very limited knowledge of the field.


That might be possible. To some extent, they also have this right as well, as a lot of pure science also occurs. That being said, science isn't an issue that everybody has an extreme interest in, so while people might feel fine with allowing science some toys, they themselves really are more interested in the practical issues. Just take all of the charities interested in curing some disease as a clear example.


I said one was necessary.


I really don't care about the distinction. Even outright democracy in Athens had its snakes.


Oy, a Venus project person.


No, but the people overseeing quality management will, the people maintaining them will, the people designing them will, and so on. It isn't as if any industry will ever reduce itself to one person. Particularly given that the "heavy automation" you advocate seems more suggestive of a manufacturing method that many people believe to be inferior to a more human one. (that is that you seem to think of Ford-like mass production, while many people today believe that Toyota-inspired lean production, which does have a focus on human resources actually works better due to the reduction of defects and ability to find errors more effectively)





Y'know, I find this whole matter more difficult given that the "technical sector" is probably going to also be responsible for sex toys, and other products that people themselves find themselves to have issues with.


Well..... the issue is that no, such people have their own problems. This isn't to say that we shouldn't value technology, but the issue is that managing anything is more than just having knowledge of the technical details. It relies on interpersonal characteristics, and it is hard to avoid that. I mean... yeah, I dislike some aspects of socialization, and many jobs avoid a lot of it, but it is very difficult to avoid all of it, while having a position of major importance.

(That being said, I don't really believe the Venus Project is a real proposal. You're not the first person here to advocate it either.)

Well, it isn't that binary. Most people have debts. I have a debt, but mostly because I have made purchases on a credit card, and until I pay the credit card back, that is technically a debt. Having this ability to take on debt is a freedom though in many ways, as I am not compelled to use a credit card, but rather I use it to ease transactions.

Most people actually have a higher GDP per capita ratio in statistics than they should have, given that in every single country, the Pareto observation is generally holding water, that 20% of the population is controlling 80% of the resources. In a society characterised by less concentration of wealth, i.e common access to the means of production rather than private ownership of the means of production.

I am actually a member of a few organisations which has an alternative proposal and a transition plan. And even if I wasn't it, it wouldn't change the fact that the only thing which you could point to the favour of the current trend is the simple statement "capitalism has always a solution" (without even addressing the point, "the bible says it so again").

I haven't claimed that the general income isn't rising, I have claimed that the current rate of resource extraction and the usage of space for production in order to sustain economic growth will result in a repetition of what happened on Easter Island, only on a global scale. The matter about economic growth today or whether the poors are getting it better now has nothing to do with whether or not the usage of the planet's resources on the part of humanity is long-term unsustainable. Your argumentation is basically that "because something is happening today, it will happen tomorrow too".

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/earthovershootday/

As for economics. I am not an economist myself, but I do know about the foundations for economics. It is built around five conclusions about the human being as a rational profit-maximiser, which in itself has been proven wrong by psychology. The human being instead is a largely irrational pack animal (while some tend to exhibit the first-mentioned profit-maximising behaviour to a large degree, especially within the psychopathic community). Moreover, classical economics is narrow to an extreme (and Austrian economics even more so, since the Austrians explicitly are rejecting the scientific method), basing all its research around a number of ideal cases (for example, in the ideal free market, there would be no geographic distances).

The assumption about inherent scarcity due to profit maximisation does only hold water in a world where people are able to accumulate as much resources and wealth as possible and such behaviour is seen as moral and/or enforced by the force of arms. In pre-modern days, there was actual scarcity, but with the ascent of industrial power, the scarcity which we see around us today is a product of wealth concentration. In the future, everyone might not own a car, but everyone would be able to utilise a car for the time they need to use it.

The Venus Project isn't a realistic approach today, and neither I nor my associates believe that all crime or "abherrent behaviour" could ever be abolished, but that is no excuse for not striving towards a society reminiscent of that proposed by Jacque Fresco. It would obviously take a long while, several generations for sure. The important bit is that the dominant characteristics of a high-technological, sustainable world civilisation are installed before the turn of the next century.

The consumers decide what they want to be produced for themselves, while the producer service decides how it is going to be produced. So if people want sex toys, they could just order that. The only concern for the producer service is that the end products are produced in a sustainable manner, aren't dangerous or unsustainable by themselves and could be re-used or re-cycled.

Under capitalism, social skills are essential since public power and the control of resources are organised with completely differing ideas and values. Moreover, people need to find work so they need to be socially tuned. In a society characterised by automatisation, a guaranteed minimum and maximum income and a strive towards sustainability instead of profits, there would be less need to uphold an inflated service sector, so that we instead of telephone salespersons could have more people engaged in the vital part of the social sector, namely the children and the elderly.

http://www.rbefoundation.com/
http://www.eoslife.eu
http://www.rbose.org/

There is debt that one can repay because the net average income stream exceeds the payout stream requirements. Then there is debt where the debtor is under water. His income is insufficient. People who can't repay loans should not be able to make them.

ruveyn

Not to speak about the US national debt!

Though, a debt crisis is a comparatively small problem. All that needs to be done is the US president refusing to pay. Would probably cause a terrible turmoil in the markets and an enormous cleansing process, but if third world countries have done so and survived, the US would certainly survive (even if the president who defaults doesn't do that - politically or personally).