every one says peace and peace but how ?
what will make this world peaceful , dont say eleminating terrorist , it is enough to hear it again and agian ?
Any cool idea ?
I don't think that there can really be 100% world peace, no matter what we humans do. There will always be conflicts. But a way I thought of to help the world be alot more peaceful would be to try to settle conflicts between countries by having conversations to resolve the conflicts, so that no war and nuclear stuff are used.
This is, again, a question with an unlimited amount of answers, all leading to the conclusion: we don't know.
I'll move this one to philosophy. And to the topicstarter, please make your first posts a bit more valuable...
I think a fundamental step will be:
1. Eradicate poverty
2. Educate the masses
Then we might have a chance...
| Tuxy wrote: |
| Ban religion. |
See, I've thought of that too. Although it will bring a lot of peace, it'll also bring a lot of chaos. Can you imagine millions of people losing their religion and having nothing to believe in? That's enough to suck the life out of them.My view on this is kind of pessimistic
we could:
1.) Eliminate all differences in a group of people who are in contact with one another(Think The Giver)
2.) Some how make everyone of the same mind(Like the Borg)
3.) Nuke the hell out of everything(No people = no war)
Differences in general lead to conflict. Religion, nationality, race, politics, social class, or whatever other differences we can find(or make up) to fight about, we tend to fight about. I really see no reason to believe it's going to change anytime soon. Understanding between people may work on a small scale, but it sometimes seems like it is against the nature of man to accept the ways of foreigners as being just as valid as his own unless (s)he has had first hand experience with the other culture.
As for banning religion, how about we just pick one?(eliminate the difference, but keep the motivating power) 
| Che wrote: |
I think a fundamental step will be:
1. Eradicate poverty
2. Educate the masses
Then we might have a chance... |
Che, I believe that your answer is generally correct, but there's a slight catch.
The reason for struggles is that people believe that others are constantly ripping them off. The communists believe that the rich are making money by exploiting the poor, and the radical capitalists believe that no one should be forced to pay for someone else's troubles.
I believe that these two extremes will NEVER meet and the struggle will continue until the end of humanity. Even if the wars between countries end (which I think will also never happen), there will still be those struggles to deal with.Contrary to popular belief, Religion is only a small portion of the overall picture of global terrorism, war, and chaos. Without religion, the world would plunge into more chaos - because religion is where many people get their morals from (and they are "good" morals [notice the quotation marks, because good is subjective]). Imagine if nobody had morals, remorse, or anything of the sort.
It would cause more war.
My solution:
There is no solution, save from making all of us the exact same. I believe someone mentioned The Giver, which is a good book. I honestly feel that unless we eliminate all differences, there will not be peace. It is those differences (beyond religion) that cause our conflicts, regardless if we're willing to come out and say it. The predujices (spelling?) are there, just very taboo now.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Contrary to popular belief, Religion is only a small portion of the overall picture of global terrorism, war, and chaos. Without religion, the world would plunge into more chaos - because religion is where many people get their morals from (and they are "good" morals [notice the quotation marks, because good is subjective]). Imagine if nobody had morals, remorse, or anything of the sort.
It would cause more war.
My solution:
There is no solution, save from making all of us the exact same. I believe someone mentioned The Giver, which is a good book. I honestly feel that unless we eliminate all differences, there will not be peace. It is those differences (beyond religion) that cause our conflicts, regardless if we're willing to come out and say it. The predujices (spelling?) are there, just very taboo now. |
Wow you have that little respect for the nature of mankind to say that people won't be well-mannered without religion? What the hell is wrong with you? You have this much resentment for mankind?! Haha, just kidding man I don't really think there is much "good" in the nature of man either. We're a bunch of barbaric people who needs to create imaginary friends to guide us or we'd be lost. 
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Contrary to popular belief, Religion is only a small portion of the overall picture of global terrorism, war, and chaos. Without religion, the world would plunge into more chaos - because religion is where many people get their morals from (and they are "good" morals [notice the quotation marks, because good is subjective]). Imagine if nobody had morals, remorse, or anything of the sort. |
Religion cause more deaths than any other philosophical issue. But that really only applies to the arabic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) as most religions don't cause the amount of violence they have.
Morels are not restricted to religion, in fact non religions people are more morel than religions people.
But getting rid of religion would not bring peace.
I don't think world peace is possible but, getting rid of poverty, intolerance and oppression would go a long way to peace.I dont think its possible, fighting is in our nature.
| Quote: |
I think a fundamental step will be:
1. Eradicate poverty
2. Educate the masses |
True but it still wouldn't help to eradicate all wars, people will always fight simply because the feel the need to servive. | Quote: |
| Religion cause more deaths than any other philosophical issue. |
Emphasis on philosphical. Things outside of religion cause far more deaths.
And it's funny you mention the Arabic religions - all founded upon peace. In reality, Christianity is quite peaceful (despite the past). Judaism is defending itself against the constant attacks, with the Holocaust and the Muslims wanting Israel destroyed and whatnot. And Islam - well, it's got issues too.
I think most religions all have at least some violent point. | Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | Religion cause more deaths than any other philosophical issue. |
Emphasis on philosphical. Things outside of religion cause far more deaths.
And it's funny you mention the Arabic religions - all founded upon peace. In reality, Christianity is quite peaceful (despite the past). Judaism is defending itself against the constant attacks, with the Holocaust and the Muslims wanting Israel destroyed and whatnot. And Islam - well, it's got issues too.
I think most religions all have at least some violent point. |
This is the reason why religion is really no better then other groups of people. They have their violent points, so are some groups. Sometimes what is good is used to justify violence because then they can blame a higher power that cannot be controlled. That's why religion is really tricky, some people can just say that religion is a thing which keeps people in check... which keeps uncivilized people in check, but what if we become civilized? Does it hold us back then? Eh, well we won't know, we haven't become civilized yet... at least I don't believe we've become civilized yet as a whole. And yes, you're right most religions have violent points in their times, but not all religions are... then again those are the ones usually picked on by people from other religions. I think Mannix made an interesting point near the beginning of this post, that differences are what lead us to conflict. I couldnt disagree more. Konrad Lorenz's book On Aggression makes the interesting point that in nature, it is differences that keep us from fighting. A primary example was that of fish (stay with me, it's not that tenuous) - in any given ecosystem, different fish will have different roles, whether as bottom feeders, small predators, large etc - and this works well for each individual involved. It is only when two fish are competing for the same resources (food/mating oppurtunities) that they become aggressive towards one another.
Now think back to human reality - how many current and past wars have not been, at least in part, over resources? Oil, diamonds, copper, furs, land... It is when species collide over mutual interests that violence becomes an issue. Even the apparently religious conflicts usually have some basis in resource conflict - Israel-Palestine/Lebanon/Egypt/Syria, though cloaked in a dense shroud of religious ideology, is primarily about land Israel has taken by force. The ideological divide between Muslims and the West is in fact nothing of the sort - it likely began when the West placed military bases in the middle-east (continuing apace in Iraq today) to ensure control of oil supplies.
Accepting this basic truth then there is no need deny anybody their belief, much less eradicate religion. If there was sufficient will, we could get together to work out a world not based around market competition and aggressive grabbing of resources, and would likely stand a better chance of survival. (For dicussion on this topic please head here). With less emphasis on national borders and more on co-ordinating to produce what we need, rather than what we are told to want (more third-world drugs, less mobile ringtones, that sort of thing), we would have a step in the right direction.
Andy As long as Bush in president of United States there can't be peace. America will keep attacking Iraq and countries around it because they need oil and money. There can't be peace because everyone would like to be mighty which leads to war.
America has a great deal of money (though in the hands of a relative few), and a thirst for oil that is unprecedented, but they don't need either of these things. It is up to the American people themselves to realise that their leaders have been concentrating wealth and encouraging exhaustive consumption of natural resources since their country began. Without this there will never be enough political will (at a grassroots level) to achieve significant change in government - it is irrelavant whether it is George Bush, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House. Without fundamental reform of US politics there will never be a change in American imperialism - state terrorism for control of resources masquerading as peacekeeping.
I realise that an outsiders perspective on US 'democracy' may not seem as valid (I am a Brit), but the actions of American foreign policy do not only affect Americans. I feel a twinge of shame every time I say where I am from, a country that has aided two recent wars (and many past) for America's cause - and our prime minister was already enough of a warmonger without the external influence.
Andy
| adredwood wrote: |
| America has a great deal of money (though in the hands of a relative few), and a thirst for oil that is unprecedented, but they don't need either of these things. |
All countries need a monetary system (and all citizens prefer it to be a stable system of good value), the U.S. included. So why does the U.S. not need money?
And every developed (and developing) country needs oil. I don't understand why you think the United States doesn't need it.
My fear is that at the current rate of growing consumption worldwide, and given the dwindling resources, in the relatively near future oil may very well be the source of the next major international conflagration. There are any number of scenarios that come to my mind, and all plausible before the year 2025.
This little Iraq and Afghanistan deal would look like a school yard scuffle. (Still does compared to either of the World Wars.)
Respectfully,
MPerhaps i was slightly unclear - America is flooded with money, it is just in the hands of a minority - it would not need any more if a process of redistribution of wealth (however unlikely or logically difficult) were set in place. And given it's current gross over-consumption, i think a drastic re-evaluation of policy is more appropriate than perpetuating current immorality in the theft of further resources.
Andy
| adredwood wrote: |
| Perhaps i was slightly unclear - America is flooded with money, it is just in the hands of a minority - it would not need any more if a process of redistribution of wealth (however unlikely or logically difficult) were set in place. |
That's not a capitalistic system.
| adredwood wrote: |
| And given it's current gross over-consumption, i think a drastic re-evaluation of poliitcy is more appropriate than perpetuating current immorality in the theft of further resources. |
I believe the U.S. and U.S. citizens/companies purchase resources. (There are some people who steal. However it is illegal. I don't think theft is national policy.)
I'm all for an idealistic world where everyone is worth the same and all resources are allocated equitably and efficiently, however it is highly unrealistic. (And I can make an argument that every nation that has ever attempted to create and "idealistic" society found themselves under tyranny.)
Can you provide me an example of a nation in which all people are equal economically and where all resources are utilized efficiently and equitably allocated?
Respectfully,
MNot a capitalistic system? Is there an argument lurking somewhere in that sentence I've missed? It is irrational to object to something purely on the grounds that it is outside conventional norms. As i mentioned, a system for redistribution of wealth might be both unlikely and difficult but this does not make it an impossibilty.
Im cant say I believe in a world of perfect equality for all, because that is an unneccesarily idealistic absolute utopia - it will never happen. Having said that however, it takes a special kind of delusion (and not one that I am accusing you of here) to believe the current capitalistic system is the optimum. For those at the top of the pile, it may appear a perfect system. For everyone else, it is anything but.
American citizens should be held accountable, not blamed for their consumption. I choose my words carefully. An oft-quoted statistic Ill remind you of - America consumes something like 25% of the worlds resources with only 4% of world population (Im sure this can be spun to be lower in some respects but the central point of over-consumption should not be in question to a rational mind). Whichever way you look at it, there is a gross imbalance. Successive US administrations have waged wars, used economic protectionism and one-sided 'free trade' agreements, toppled democracies and maintained illegal sanctions, all to manipulate sovereign nations into opening up their markets to foreign capital. And make no mistake, there is rarely anything benevolent in aggressive foreign investment - in almost every country that has followed the neoliberal economics of the IMF and World Bank, foreign capital has enriched the elites while disenfranchising the poor.
Third World debt is a good example of this process, what David Harvey has called 'accumulation by disposession' (see here)
whereby foreign loans are given in the guise of aid - but of course interest repayments have crippled the economies of many recipient countries, and immoral 'structural adjustment programs' force them to cut back on social spending to repay their debts. Recent facades to resolve this matter have achieved very little.
On a (predominantly) domestic scale, disposession can occur through the decimation of employee shares by market collpases and corporate fraud - Enron's collapse wiped out the pensions of many of its former employees, and it's case is not uncommon.
Global patents, particularly in the sphere of genetic copyrights, have stolen the rights of farmers to grow with seeds they have developed themselves over generations, instead forced to buy patented seeds at great expense. The enforced opening of markets for capital has had the effect of shifting production away from subsistence farming and into export crops (creating food shortages and dependency on volatile international markets), often requiring a homogenisation of previously varied agricultural land at the expense of the environment. And with a large proportion of populations in the Third World still existing as farmers, this is no small issue.
The support of violent suppression of populations for extraction of natural resources should also not be ignored; Indonesia's violence in East Timor (tacitly approved by Australia's inaction) is a good example, as is Iraq's oil, Africa's diamonds (among other resources) and Latin America's.. well, everything. It would not be hard to find more examples. It is this Im talking about when I speak of global theft (of course not limited to America), not individual acts by America's citizens. I have always maintained that when Western populations know the extent of the wholesale slaughter, corruption and immorality that occurs in their name, they will object in a most forceful sense.
As the World bank has admitted in a Global Economic Prospects review, there are 3 major downsides to globalization: 'growing inequality, pressures in labor markets and threats to the global commons' - none of which can be ignored if the US has any interest in its long term future role in the world. The disenfranchised will sooner or later realise the scale of what has been stripped from them and demand some sort of recompense. They will not be unjustified.
In response to your request for utopian examples, of course I cant furnish you with any - they dont exist. Not will they ever, for reasons already explained. I can, however, point out several examples where populations, leaders or social movements have attempted to improve the lot of the common man and been firmly put in their place by Western powers. Vietnam, invaded after communism threatened to provide a good example to regional neighbours; Sanctions against Cuba throughout Castro's reign (of course an imperfect example, but the fundamentals objections - America's fear of a communist example - are the same); the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran after he nationalized the country's oil company, a move overwhelmingly supported by Iranians; the disruption of elections in Italy and Greece post WWII when nationalist movement post occupation threatened to elect left-wing governments.. the list goes on (William Blum's Killing Hope is an excellent resource on this topic).
I hope i havent bored you with logic, but the claim that America's wealth was attained through benign capitalism is a fallacy so great it deserves a serious rebuttal, one far more detailed than i have shown here. On the issue of improving society, I would again point you to the resources here - they can explain much better than I the ideas behind capitalistic alternatives - all that is required is the leap of imagination to believe there can be an alternative, and youre half way there.
Andy | adredwood wrote: |
| Not a capitalistic system? Is there an argument lurking somewhere in that sentence I've missed? It is irrational to object to something purely on the grounds that it is outside conventional norms. |
Just saying that the United States will never be anything but capitalistic. Like all nations the day will come when the U.S. no longer exists, but I doubt there will be any drastic changes in the global economic system prior to that (if ever). The world has always been capitalistic (with the exception of some disastrous experiments in communism).
| adredwood wrote: |
| American citizens should be held accountable, not blamed for their consumption. I choose my words carefully. An oft-quoted statistic Ill remind you of - America consumes something like 25% of the worlds resources with only 4% of world population (Im sure this can be spun to be lower in some respects but the central point of over-consumption should not be in question to a rational mind). Whichever way you look at it, there is a gross imbalance. |
On the surface it looks like a gross imbalance. However the U.S. is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world. Now, if all countries were equally wealthy and equally powerful, than yes one would expect consumption to be fairly proportional to population. However countries are not equal. I'm sure Japan consumes more energy than many countries, as does Western Europe. The U.S. military alone consumes 300,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil a day. I personally am currently heating my home to a comfortable 70 degrees, watching TV, typing on my laptop, running a wireless network, and running several electrical appliances including a hot water heater. Later I'll cook a meal in an electric oven and I'll drive to work. Thus I am consuming a lot more energy than the vast majority of 3 person families in the world on a given day. Should I feel guilty about that? No. If you want to, go ahead. I don't. It's just the way things are. Once again, if you want to change that it would be a world completely alien to the one that currently exists or has ever existed.
Oh, and American citizens are held accountable. We pay for it. I don't get all this energy for free.
| adredwood wrote: |
| Successive US administrations have waged wars, used economic protectionism and one-sided 'free trade' agreements, toppled democracies and maintained illegal sanctions, all to manipulate sovereign nations into opening up their markets to foreign capital. And make no mistake, there is rarely anything benevolent in aggressive foreign investment - in almost every country that has followed the neoliberal economics of the IMF and World Bank, foreign capital has enriched the elites while disenfranchising the poor. |
Any country or group of allied countries is going to act in its own best interests and the best interests of its citizenry. Purely natural and logical. (Even acts of humanitarianism often have a side objective of fostering good will between nations.) Once again that may change, but not in my lifetime (if ever).
| adredwood wrote: |
The support of violent suppression of populations for extraction of natural resources should also not be ignored; Indonesia's violence in East Timor (tacitly approved by Australia's inaction) is a good example, as is Iraq's oil, Africa's diamonds (among other resources) and Latin America's.. well, everything. It would not be hard to find more examples. It is this Im talking about when I speak of global theft (of course not limited to America), not individual acts by America's citizens. I have always maintained that when Western populations know the extent of the wholesale slaughter, corruption and immorality that occurs in their name, they will object in a most forceful sense.
As the World bank has admitted in a Global Economic Prospects review, there are 3 major downsides to globalization: 'growing inequality, pressures in labor markets and threats to the global commons' - none of which can be ignored if the US has any interest in its long term future role in the world. The disenfranchised will sooner or later realise the scale of what has been stripped from them and demand some sort of recompense. They will not be unjustified.
In response to your request for utopian examples, of course I cant furnish you with any - they dont exist. Not will they ever, for reasons already explained. I can, however, point out several examples where populations, leaders or social movements have attempted to improve the lot of the common man and been firmly put in their place by Western powers. Vietnam, invaded after communism threatened to provide a good example to regional neighbours; Sanctions against Cuba throughout Castro's reign (of course an imperfect example, but the fundamentals objections - America's fear of a communist example - are the same); the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran after he nationalized the country's oil company, a move overwhelmingly supported by Iranians; the disruption of elections in Italy and Greece post WWII when nationalist movement post occupation threatened to elect left-wing governments.. the list goes on (William Blum's Killing Hope is an excellent resource on this topic).
I hope i havent bored you with logic, but the claim that America's wealth was attained through benign capitalism is a fallacy so great it deserves a serious rebuttal, one far more detailed than i have shown here. On the issue of improving society, I would again point you to the resources here - they can explain much better than I the ideas behind capitalistic alternatives - all that is required is the leap of imagination to believe there can be an alternative, and youre half way there.
Andy |
I don't hold to the economic and social theories of anarchism. Parecon is just socialism dressed up in a different outfit. It tries to address the inherent problems that lead to the failures of communism, but I still believe it to be grossly inefficient. What motive is there to improve efficiencies or innovate in a Parecon society? Organized labor strives to maintain high ratios of labor to work, not diminish them.
Parecon may work on a small scale (small business, non-profits, etc.), but I believe like communism it would fail on a macroeconomic scale. I'd like to see a country try it and see how well it does in the long term.
If such a new social experiment were tried and it failed, you might blame it on the Western capitalistic powers, as you seemed to blame the failure of communism. However, I'd argue that if socialism, communism, or Parecon fails due to Western capitalistic powers, than it is a failure, not the victim of evil capitalism. Just as if one animal is stronger than another, natural selection chooses the stronger over the weaker, the one better able to adapt over the less adaptable one. That is the way the world works. If Parecon is better than capitalism, then a parecon nation should be able to rise above all others no matter what the obstacles. I have no problem with any group of people trying it. It would be no different than that social experiment the founding fathers of the United States started in the 18th Century.
But like I said, if it fails, the system is a failure, not a victim. Like nature, the human world is competitive. There is no other way to measure success or failure. Dinosaurs were not victims. Nature simply selected them for extinction. The same applies to failed social systems IMHO.
Respectfully,
MI don't think worldwide peace is possible. The only way to make everybody happy is to give them or provide them with what they want, which is just not possible. Most people are not satisfied with what they have, always yearning for more. From that perspective, no matter what we do whether eradicating poverty, implementing policies or whatsoever will not work.
It is the people themselves who have to come to terms with themselves for there to be peace. Racism, biasness, a 1001 factors exist, can anyone eliminate them all?
Moonspider, Ill address the points made in more detail when I the chance, but dont you think there's something fundamentally wrong with defending the status quo when it's so immoral? There would be no problem in arguing that particular branch of conservatism if the US (and others) existed within a vacuum, but they do not. Their foreign policy, resource consumption and pollution affect the rest of the world, and to a greater degree than can be overcome by simply establishing good examples elsewhere. And since intervention in other countries is a requisite of (particularly) US policy, dont you think it is valid for these countries to question the capitalistic system so violently espoused by the few?
Andy
| adredwood wrote: |
Moonspider, Ill address the points made in more detail when I the chance, but dont you think there's something fundamentally wrong with defending the status quo when it's so immoral? There would be no problem in arguing that particular branch of conservatism if the US (and others) existed within a vacuum, but they do not. Their foreign policy, resource consumption and pollution affect the rest of the world, and to a greater degree than can be overcome by simply establishing good examples elsewhere. And since intervention in other countries is a requisite of (particularly) US policy, dont you think it is valid for these countries to question the capitalistic system so violently espoused by the few?
Andy |
The few? How many people in the world live in something other than a capitalistic system? Even China adopted capitalism to prop up its communist state.
I don't think capitalism inherently immoral. Like any system, people or groups of people within it may behave immorally, but I don't think the system itself is immoral.
I'm not talking about setting up "a good example." The world is competitive. Nature is competitive. Humans are thus competitive. I mean set up a Parecon country to compete with capitalism and render it extinct. No animal ever successfully evolved by setting a good example.
Like I said, I think it doomed to failure, but I may be wrong. Perhaps a new economic/political system of thought will arise but the conditions simply are not right for it yet. Like mammals who did not evolve to dominate the Earth until environmental conditions rendered the dinosaurs extinct, perhaps current conditions favor capitalism over all other systems. In the future, for whatever reason conditions may change and render capitalism unable to compete.
Respectfully,
MCapitalism, socialism, communism. They all have there problems. No economic or political system is perfect and though you could maybe make a combination of capitalism and socialism thats better than the rest, it would still have problems.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Capitalism, socialism, communism. They all have there problems. No economic or political system is perfect and though you could maybe make a combination of capitalism and socialism thats better than the rest, it would still have problems. |
Agreed.
Respectfully,
MOk, forget what we call whatever system we're supposed to be within. What im asking is if you look at the world today and think - 'well, its got some problems, but this is the best we can do.' Do you believe that? Because if so, we have a fundamental divergence.
I like to think i am an optimistic realist. Or a pragmatic optimist, or some combination of the two. (The glass may be chipped, it may have a sickeningly floral pattern along the side, but it's certainly half-full.) You mention that the current system will never change, we will always be capitalistic, yet this defies logic - every system (especially one that creates such gross imbalances) will change or end at some point. The Roman, Persian and British empires all fell. The US is setting a precedent in history as the first empire to be built and maintained without overtly conquering other nations, but the subtlety (or lack of) in its empire will not prevent any such fall.
[To elaborate on that - the current empire is constructed through primarily market dominance, with the Bretton Woods agreement after the Second World War favouring US dollars in several key areas. Overt force may be frequent but it is rarely a case of physically invading a country, replacing its governement with a puppet and installing a permanent military presence. Iraq is of course an exception to this. After this, a market dominance was enjoyed by the US for many years, until the rise of manufacturing industries such as Japan and now China enabled other global players to have a stronger arm. But the empire is primarily maintained by economic institutions, the IMF et al encouraging an essentially a free flow of capital to ensure money is not tied up in such peripheries as social programs and public facilites.]
The basic framework of this debate is the sovereign right of a nation to control its own resources. As Chomsky has pointed out, the post war order was constructed with a view to combating what was called 'economic nationalism', ie the peoples right to enrich their lives and improve social conditions with the resources of their country. Since this is contrary to the logic of multinational corporate 'investment' (foreign companies paying a pittance for a local population to hand over their resources), much of the ensuing history has been bloody.
Lets put it in reverse - imagine if the US were an emerging nation that had just discovered vast quantities of oil. Foreign companies, perhaps from China, Japan, Australia, begin to take an interest in extracting the oil. To encourage foreign investment in the fledgling industry, the government sells off the national oil company to foreign investors. Now besides those workers intrinsically connected to the oil industry, the nation as a whole is not benefiting from the profits, as the vast majority are disappearing abroad. As a source of national pride, people start to demand the renationalization of the industry so that they can benefit from it, and at the next election they vote in a nationalist president who does just that. But now the investors are disgruntled - their cash cow has disappeared in the blink of an eye and they are kicked out of the country. They lobby their government, who decides it is in their nation's interest to regain control over US oil, and to this end they carry out a campaign of destabilisation against the president. Perhaps they channel a great deal of money into opposition groups, maybe even stage a coup and support the military dictator that takes over. What is important is that the president is removed, his nationalist reforms reversed, the foreign investors placated.
The US internal record is filled with objections (and subsequent violent reactions across the globe) to nationalist attempts to reform a country, simply on the basis that they harm American investors within that country. In 1953, Charles R Burrows of the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs argued that:
"Guatemala has become an increasing threat to the stability of Honduras and El Salvador. Its agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon; its broad social program of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American neighbors where similar conditions prevail." (Source)
The US then backed a coup to overthrow the democratically elected president Arbenz in 1954. This overthrow "inaugurated forty years of US-backed dictatorships that presided over the murder of over one hundred thousand civilians" (ibid.) Guatemala is not an isolated case.
So what I would ask is - would you accept this form of imperialism when forced upon the US? Would you still defend the status quo as the best possible alternative with a brutal foreign backed dictatorship in power? Or would you stand up and be heard in vocal protest?
I believe ive sidetracked myself from answering your specific points, so let me try.
Should you feel bad for consuming vastly more than other people outside the US? Of course not. However, i think it might be an idea to realise that many people live very comfortable lives without that level of consumption, and since it is demonstrably unmaintainable (in the global long term) it might be an idea to make some small changes where you can.
However, subsidised fuel bills are not entirely paying the cost of over-consumption - there are what's called externalities, an example being the pollution that is a by-product of a company's production methods. The externalities of over-consumption as a whole can be seen in Greenpeace trailers everywhere, and in a more constructive digest here.
| Quote: |
| Any country or group of allied countries is going to act in its own best interests and the best interests of its citizenry. Purely natural and logical. (Even acts of humanitarianism often have a side objective of fostering good will between nations.) Once again that may change, but not in my lifetime (if ever). |
This is a confusing sentence. The US does act in its own interests, and so do other nations, but due to the nature of the scope of their actions on other countries, this cannot alone be justification. And i think youre confusing the meaning of humanitarianism there.
You can deny anarchism or socialism or whatever you choose to call alternatives, but to deny that their should be an alternative is a dangerous self-deception, for all the reasons above.
I agree that if a system fails we should call it a failure - however, as i believe ive provided a logical case for gross manipulation of these sytems from outside agents, many would argue that the alternatives have never been given a chance. Also, by any systematic, logical process of examination, capitalism has failed in that it benefits the few over the many. Hence, shouldnt we be looking to find an alternative?
| Quote: |
| The few? How many people in the world live in something other than a capitalistic system? Even China adopted capitalism to prop up its communist state. |
The few i mentioned are the global elites who perpetuate the system to the disadvantage of the many, perhaps this wasnt clear enough in my sentence.
I think that's covered it, and now my hands are tired...
Andy | QrafTee wrote: |
| Tuxy wrote: | | Ban religion. |
See, I've thought of that too. Although it will bring a lot of peace, it'll also bring a lot of chaos. Can you imagine millions of people losing their religion and having nothing to believe in? That's enough to suck the life out of them. |
Religion is a product of fear and ignorance. We have to convince them they can beleive in eachother in stead of fairytales. As long as everybody trusts eachother nothing can go wrong. People must forget what 1000-years old religions tell them about life and society. | adredwood wrote: |
| Ok, forget what we call whatever system we're supposed to be within. What im asking is if you look at the world today and think - 'well, its got some problems, but this is the best we can do.' Do you believe that? Because if so, we have a fundamental divergence. |
I never said it was the best we can do, just that it is the most successful system in the current geopolitical environment.
| adredwood wrote: |
| You mention that the current system will never change, we will always be capitalistic, yet this defies logic - every system (especially one that creates such gross imbalances) will change or end at some point. |
I never said that. In fact, I said the exact opposite:
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Like all nations the day will come when the U.S. no longer exists, but I doubt there will be any drastic changes in the global economic system prior to that (if ever). The world has always been capitalistic (with the exception of some disastrous experiments in communism). |
I over exaggerated the span of capitalism of course, however anything that succeeds capitalism will be something utterly alien to human history, once again IMHO.
| adredwood wrote: |
| The Roman, Persian and British empires all fell. The US is setting a precedent in history as the first empire to be built and maintained without overtly conquering other nations, but the subtlety (or lack of) in its empire will not prevent any such fall. |
Like I said before, the day will come when the U.S. no longer exists. But why are we speaking of the fall of the Roman or British Empires? We are discussing capitalism, not nations. The Roman Empire functioned under mercantilism, the forerunner of capitalism. And the British Empire functioned under capitalism. (Mercantilism was spread by the Muslims in the days of the Arab Empire, and that is from which capitalism evolved in Europe, the system having been abandoned in Europe after the fall of Rome. Hence the reason we have such Arabic words in the English language as “tariff.”) So, the system under which we currently live has in one form or another dominated the world for more than 2,000 years. Like I said, a new system would be alien in human history on a macroeconomic scale. (I say macroeconomic because Baptist churches, for example, function in a system most closely related Stephen Shalom’s idea of parpolity than any other organization in existence that I know of.)
As for the Guatemala example, I believe historical documents from the period, such as those made public from the CIA, support the view that that U.S. operation in the Eisenhower administration had far more to do with the Cold War and stopping the spread of Communism than it did with the U.S. overthrowing a government for the sake of the United Fruit Company. That’s not Imperialism, IMHO, that’s war (between the Communist Ideology/the Soviet Union and the United States).
| adredwood wrote: |
| So what I would ask is - would you accept this form of imperialism when forced upon the US? Would you still defend the status quo as the best possible alternative with a brutal foreign backed dictatorship in power? Or would you stand up and be heard in vocal protest? |
If I was under a government which I believed to be oppressive and immoral, I would revolt (by arms only if necessary) against it just as my European ancestors did in 17th Century England and later in 18th Century North America. However, that does not make capitalism “wrong” per se. My ancestors did not seek to change the economic system in either case nor would I do so in the fictitious analogy.
| adredwood wrote: |
| Should you feel bad for consuming vastly more than other people outside the US? Of course not. However, i think it might be an idea to realise that many people live very comfortable lives without that level of consumption, and since it is demonstrably unmaintainable (in the global long term) it might be an idea to make some small changes where you can. |
I don’t think it demonstrably impossible to maintain, except in that historically all societies and governments eventually fail. Yes, people live as comfortably without consuming as much energy or resources. But I live in a nation where economically it would be difficult for me to do so without compromising my family’s status in that society and its ability to succeed. Caesar Augustus may have lived very comfortably consuming less energy, but I’ll take my life as an average citizen in the United States over his life as ruler of the Roman Empire any day!
| adredwood wrote: |
| However, subsidised fuel bills are not entirely paying the cost of over-consumption - there are what's called externalities, an example being the pollution that is a by-product of a company's production methods. |
I’m quite familiar with externalities, but believe the method by which parecon would attempt to address them to be flawed. I think in practice it would prove grossly inefficient and an impediment to economic and technological progress.
Capitalism addresses them as well, just in a different manner (such as exorbitant taxes on cigarettes and penalties for pollution as well as benefits for better managing pollution). I think this manner, while not perfect, is more efficient and less restrictive on industry and business than parecon would be.
| adredwood wrote: |
| Quote: | | Any country or group of allied countries is going to act in its own best interests and the best interests of its citizenry. Purely natural and logical. (Even acts of humanitarianism often have a side objective of fostering good will between nations.) Once again that may change, but not in my lifetime (if ever). |
This is a confusing sentence. The US does act in its own interests, and so do other nations, but due to the nature of the scope of their actions on other countries, this cannot alone be justification. And i think youre confusing the meaning of humanitarianism there. |
I didn't mean for it to be confusing. Do you think a country could survive if it did not behave in a manner that benefited its own interests? Do you think a nation would stand a chance of lasting for any length of time if it put the needs of other citizens and other nations before its own?
I don’t think I confused the meaning of “humanitarianism.” I meant “concern for human welfare, especially as manifested through philanthropy,” such as humanitarian aid that wealthy nations often provide (and which the U.S. provides in abundance even to her enemies, such as the DPRK). I simply believe that, though right and proper to help the poor, governments also hope to foster good relations through that aid.
| adredwood wrote: |
| You can deny anarchism or socialism or whatever you choose to call alternatives, but to deny that their should be an alternative is a dangerous self-deception, for all the reasons above. |
I’ve never denied an alternative, just argued that in the current environment, I think capitalism to be the preferred system. (And I am not necessarily saying preferred by individuals, though I think it is, but preferred by the nature of the social, geo-political, and technological environment.)
It may someday be extinct, but I think that requires a significant change in society, not a personal choice. An example might be a technological achievement that so empowered individuals that the capitalistic system becomes unable to deal with the change. (Perhaps nano-manufacturing could be such a revolutionary event. Who knows?) The environment would then select a different system over capitalism and select capitalism for extinction. As another example, if the Earth was hit with a devastating asteroid impact that caused all governments to fall and industries to collapse, I can virtually guarantee that capitalism would go away in favor of a traditional economy.
Like I said before, I don’t agree with leftist philosophies or Avram Chomsky’s theories on the subject. I think the concepts to be even more prone to elitism than representative democracies and the economic theories to be inefficient. Furthermore, I fear that such political systems are more prone to totalitarianism and oppression. They are essentially socialist. And while they speak of lofty notions like freedom and equality, they are not grounded in reality. Socialism values equality over liberty and responsibility over freedom.
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Winston Churchill
I’d love to continue our discussion of capitalism vs. other economic systems, for it is a favorite subject of mine, even discuss political ideologies such as “parpolity.” However, I fear that we are digressing from the original subject of the thread. Thus, if you wish to continue our debate, I recommend starting a new thread in which to do so.
Respectfully,
M | Tuxy wrote: |
| QrafTee wrote: | | Tuxy wrote: | | Ban religion. |
See, I've thought of that too. Although it will bring a lot of peace, it'll also bring a lot of chaos. Can you imagine millions of people losing their religion and having nothing to believe in? That's enough to suck the life out of them. |
Religion is a product of fear and ignorance. We have to convince them they can beleive in eachother in stead of fairytales. As long as everybody trusts eachother nothing can go wrong. People must forget what 1000-years old religions tell them about life and society. |
Well that's true, but there are a lot of religious people out there. And they usually speak louder than the non-religious ones. Yes, we could believe in ourselves and each other, but then a lot of steps need to be taken... first would be proving without a shadow of a doubt that those fairytales are indeed fairytales. Solve the fact that we don't have enough resources to satisfy everyone on Earth. Then stop each other from killing... each other. Those are kinda in order because if you do the second first, someone is going to claim it was God... then the fairytale will be harder to debunk... then more killing... | QrafTee wrote: |
| Well that's true, but there are a lot of religious people out there. And they usually speak louder than the non-religious ones. Yes, we could believe in ourselves and each other, but then a lot of steps need to be taken |
hmm, so you replace organized theism with organized humanism... sounds like you just changed religions/philosophies (instead of eliminating religion), the main difference between your religion and Soulfire's is that you are forcing your's to be universal so that the believers (all of humanity) have one less "difference". Which interestingly enough was Soulfire's main point, the problem isn't necessarily religion, but intolerance. And intolerance is not limited to us religious bigots, I know many atheists who have shown extreme intolerance towards the opinions and ideas of others.
| QrafTee wrote: |
| first would be proving without a shadow of a doubt that those fairytales are indeed fairytales. |
And you plan to achieve this how?
| QrafTee wrote: |
| Solve the fact that we don't have enough resources to satisfy everyone on Earth. |
Another immense (and I personally believe impossible) task. Not that I think it an ignoble effort. More of an impossible task that needs to be worked towards even if it can never be accomplished, sort of similar to achieving world peace...
| QrafTee wrote: |
| Then stop each other from killing... each other. |
Good idea, that could be the first commandment of your organized humanismMoonspider - sounds like a plan on the new thread idea. Afraid im rather busy for the next few days so i wont be contributing, but ill get round to it on sunday or monday. If you know of any way to get the other posts transferred across to the new, that would be grand too.
Andy
