Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThinking the Unthinkable: Not Growing the Economy
At what point does economic growth become uneconomic growth?
Every society clings to a myth by which it lives. Ours is the myth of economic growth. For the last five decades the pursuit of growth has been the single most important policy goal across the world. The global economy is almost five times the size it was half a century ago. If it continues to grow at the same rate, the economy will be 80 times that size by the year 2100.
This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It's totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology we depend on for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world's ecosystems.
For the most part, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. The default assumption is that - financial crises aside - growth will continue indefinitely. Not just for the poorest countries where a better quality of life is undeniably needed, but even for the richest nations where the cornucopia of material wealth adds little to happiness and is beginning to threaten the foundations of our well-being.
The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. The modern economy is structurally reliant on economic growth for its stability. When growth falters - as it has done recently - politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. A spiral of recession looms. Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries.
But question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems we depend on for survival. It has failed spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people's livelihoods.
Today we find ourselves faced with the imminent end of the era of cheap oil; the prospect (beyond the recent bubble) of steadily rising commodity prices; the degradation of forests, lakes and soils; conflicts over land use, water quality and fishing rights; and the momentous challenge of stabilizing concentrations of carbon in the global atmosphere. And we face these tasks with an economy that is fundamentally broken, in desperate need of renewal.
In these circumstances, a return to business as usual is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilized society. Economic recovery is vital. Protecting people's jobs - and creating new ones - is absolutely essential. But we also stand in urgent need of a renewed sense of shared prosperity. A commitment to fairness and flourishing in a finite world.
Delivering these goals may seem an unfamiliar or even incongruous task for policy in the modern age. The role of government has been framed so narrowly by material aims and hollowed out by a misguided vision of unbounded consumer freedoms. The concept of governance itself stands in urgent need of renewal.
But the current economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To replace it with policy capable of addressing the enormous challenge of delivering a lasting prosperity.
For at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.
Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings - within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.
98 Comments so far
Show AllAs a new poster I must say I found this a highly interesting thread - more than a thread, indeed, a lively and entertaining debate. FWIW here is my own two pennyworth on this "thinking the unthinkable " issue.
You can't simultaneously have contradictory things. Widhalm was right to say that there are no programs, plans or political movements that can dramatically change the mould without destroying the cake. Put at its crudest, people in Western society are - historically if nothing else - all more or less beneficiaries of a capitalist system that has delivered substantial material benefits to many, whilst admittedly denying those benefits to a lot more elsewhere- including the monstrous regiment earning $2 a day. But are we even sure that suppressing free market forces is going to benefit the Third World? Bernard Mandeville perceived the dilemma when he wrote his Fable of the Bees in the eighteenth century. It seems he got a bit fed up with well-meaning, myopic social reformers bad mouthing a system that had delivered the very prosperity they enjoyed. To point this up he wrote a fable hypothesing a divine intervention that punished a prosperous, but grumbling hive of bees by introducing Christian values of self denial and otherworldliness. What was formerly a lively, thriving, unregulated, market-driven hive of bees soon became a hive of sterile and unproductive drones.
I'm not advocating unfettered capitalism (no more than BM was, I suspect) but I do wonder about the contradictions - not least Tim Jackson's advocacy of sustainable development within the context of UK New labour's enthusiastic embracing of market forces and giving succour to a load of overpaid and extraordinarily undeserving bankers. Am I right in thinking TJ's outfit is a UK quango? (Quasi autonomous non govt organisation) Enough to raise Mandeville's eyebrow, I think.
Good observation from Bea about the insufficiency of the stakhanovite work ethic in the old Eastern bloc. Produced a lot of clunky hardware and long queues outside the shops. Not having worked since 1982 I'm not even sure about work per se. As Oscar Wilde said in his entertaining essay The Soul of Man under Socialism, on the evidence of what he saw it's an overrated activity that would be ruled out in an ideal world.
Being innovative, busy and creatively engaged, that's entirely different.
Good Morning Kindred Spirits, (for those of you that are not Kindred Spirits ((if any exist)) and would like to become one, the door is always open.
A Kindred Spirit is Love ,Compassion, Justice.
Those of you that posted a comment to this article should go to this previous article (many of you have been there).
article appears in commondreams.org
Title of article: “When Will The Recovery Begin ? Never.
Author: Robert Reich
dated : Friday July 10 2009
In my opinion Mr. Reich’s article describes the existing economic reality.
Sioux Rose, did you miss this article ?
Citizen Central is no longer inert, the momentum has begun.
Here are some answers to the comments directed to Citizen Central by posters (I am not aware of all of them sorry).
yours truly’s post July 11 2009 to Mr. Reich’s article is the approach Citizen Central is taking.
Is Citizen Central a forum? No Citizen Central is a direction action citizens lobby.
Will Citizen Central be a web creation? That would be great if C.C. manifests through the internet.
Why don’t you just create a web site or have someone do it ?. That’s a great idea , we need a web site, I don’t know how to do it, nor do I have the resources. That has to come from one of you .I can explain what the web site needs to do.
C.C. needs an administrator, who’s going to be the administrator, you? No the site will need an administrator, one of you.
Who will design the site, and choose the topics for consideration, you ? As of today I am the project manager, if someone wants to be project manager,
make your case. I am the current project manager someone had to do it, the way C.C. works, the members choose a project manager. When C.C. is created if a new project manager is desired we get one . There are no ego’s involved here.
What is the objective of c.c. ? Okay, within our current political system the only way to manifest our collective desires is to have the numbers.
Congress, the senate and the administration is elected by us the citizens. What we need is a majority of votes in each congresspersons, and senators district. That’s what c.c. does, bring together all the like-minded citizens ,but instead of electing a person to represent us, we elect a person to create laws and policy that we the citizens want . If they do not want to do the citizens business then we have an immediate recall and replace that person with a person that will.
If the elected official always did what the majority wanted then there would be no civil rights etc. I understand your point . However considering the situation at hand ,our elected officials are not representing our best interests, we have to change that , THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE THAT WITHIN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM IS TO HAVE A MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN EACH DISTRICT.
What we need right now is a way for the people interested in c.c.to be able to communicate with each other. I am going to post c.c. activity in the post section of the first article that appears on commondreams each day . Hopefully we can come up with an alternative soon.
Sioux Rose , you had mentioned that the administrator of commondreams might help us out, any way of checking on that.
Later on today :
We need to get a web site operational .Until that’s done we are limited.
We need to get every progressive site on board, as well as the general population.
If this statistic is correct , forty percent of American citizens are functionally illiterate, we need to energize that segment of society, by appealing to individuals that these people might trust for their endorsement i.e. actors, athletes, members of specific ethnic groups, religious leaders etc.
Once the opposition becomes aware of c.c. it will definitely turn into a numbers game. Mainstream media will not be very helpful to our cause, the internet and a field organization is probably the most effective way to go.
See you later today.
Unconstrained growth is called cancer. Life is short - let us not rush through it.
When making wine we introduce yeast into a closed system where they are given a finite supply of water and sugar. The yeast quickly proceed to reproduce like crazy, and consume their main food supply, the sugar, until it is gone and they die in their own alcohol excrement.
We also live in a closed system called the Earth's biosphere. We have been given a set of finite resources, which we now seem to be consuming as fast are we possibly can and reproducing as fast as we can.
Are we no smarter than the yeast we use to make our wine? Apparently not.
Perpetual growth in a closed system is a myth, it simply can't go on indefinitely.
"Perpetual growth in a closed system is a myth, it simply can't go on indefinitely."
I remember studying perpetual growth back when I took a finance course in college. They would admit that it's not possible but try to fool the reader into believing that it's close to possible. Their theories would go along the lines of saying that the more the CEOs and stockholders got richer, the more perpetual growth was possible. Never mind the gutted employees and even the company itself crumbling. Somehow, slitting a company's wrist is framed as a "good" thing.
Growth is dependent on innovation, and innovation is dependent on growth. As yet I have not heard ONE alternative that has not already occurred and failed. Abolishing large internal economies for small local ones? Yea that happened in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire...it was called the Dark Ages. Egalitarian collectives? Heck, there are plenty of towns in the U.S. which were founded by Christian communities who attempted that. How successful were they? History shows that breaking off from growth and development is ultimately self-injury.
Innovation is not dependent on growth when substituting one harmful technology for a more benign one. GM could rebuild the electric vehicles they destroyed, the trains, trolleys, electric buses they burned and rails they tore up, (see "Internal Combustion"). Innovation depends on whether members of a society share enough wealth from the public treasure otherwise directed to short term profits for greed-heads, and enough spare time to innovate. That instead of having to depend on onerous venture capitalist arrangements, bank loans and military grants to get their inventions to market while holding down two jobs to pay for health-care, mortgage, food, education, transportation, insurance and still have time for their families.
We don't need to abolish large internal economies (corporations?) if these have economies of scale. We simply need to share in their ownership and benefits much more equitably, starting with our own government. Some European Social Democracies have the best of both worlds and are thriving while America sinks.
You assume as premise the point you would prove.
Few innovations are driven by investment capitalism or capital-based growth. Rather, investors regularly claim credit for innovations they scalp.
For instance, many claim the Internet as a capitalist-based innovation. In reality, it was developed by socialist means, on government funds, from the systems structure from old gov't projects to the Net architecture from ARPA-Net to the GUI browsers developed under NCSA funds. Even those components developed by private companies were funded by government contract.
God help us, but many claim as innovation developments of nuclear physics and of aeronautics. Once again, these were done under military contracts. Costs were socialized and profits gleaned by a few investors, but capital growth and market economics had nothing to do with it.
Similarly, most of the medical advances of the 20th Century took place under military grant, government grant, or special government protection -- including the absurdly protectionist patent laws protecting large pharmaceutical companies and bioengineering firms.
No, those advances have not come from capital growth.
On the other hand, history shows many examples of people living in isolated areas with decent, supportive societies and low or zero growth.
There is a major problem, however: they cannot do so once they come into contact with a larger economy because they are invaded and killed or exploited.
So things remain unsimple.
First, was it socialist or capitalist that Internet technology came into the homes of the consumer?
Second I think you missed my point.
"On the other hand, history shows many examples of people living in isolated areas with decent, supportive societies and low or zero growth." And what was the fate of these civilizations? Were they dominated?
I think I got the point.
Yes, small economies get dominated, as acknowledged. And yes, that is significant. It does mean that the economy has to be sufficiently large and sufficiently nasty to support a military deterrent to invasion - sadly, but very importantly.
However, the US could now easily maintain a deterrent to invasion with a fraction of its current economy and a small fraction of its military spending.
You're fighting a previous war: the US is in danger from misbegotten and misdirected growth, not from invasion.
The Net came to the consumer when the government GAVE it away. Just because the government gave it to corporations instead of the consumer makes little difference. The Net was there; the spam is new.
But the latter does not relate much to innovation. Distribution does not equal innovation anyway.
Valid point, on that last part. And I agree that our defense budget can be reduced. As long as we can deter aggression against our interests and avoid blackmail I think we should be fine.
Aren't we dominated now?
Aren't we goin back to the same circle game with asking if a system is Socialist or Capitalist when all systems are mixed?
China, the fastest growing economy is both... they claim they are still working on socialism yet they are better at capitalism than the USA and use it pretty wisely considering they have the burdens and sometimes benefit for having the biggest population ever on the planet..
Since everything is connected, our inventions were achieved under a mixed system. Now we need to control and adjust the mix for the benefit of the common good. More socialism for the most people instead of just the "too big to fail" Corporations, elite politicians and military.
Our insane fixation on "Terrorism" is a reaction to our fixation on maintaining empire while that fixation is bringing the majority down everywhere.
Since there is no "Pure" system and never will be, I wish intellectuals would focus on reality... the perpetual balance of the Mix.
This is probably harder to do than argue about abstract isms that freeze action.
But this is just my opinion while extremes and the "pure" ideas always make conflict and conflict is the bases of every story that holds the attention of our animal evolving minds. Maybe I am pushing the unthinkable too, as usual.
The U.S. is dominant economically as well as culturally. As an American, that means my culture. Though I am in agreement with you on mixed economies. There are no absolutes. I'm glad someone else sees that. :)
A close look needs to be taken at patent laws. The unlimited use of pivotal patent ownerships can lead to excessive monopolized exploitation.
Well said. The way government has made taxpayers pay for technological development and then handed the technology on a silver platter to some corporation to profit from is the 20th century's dirty secret. It was over 30 years ago that NASA began using the heat shield tiles on the shuttles. I watched on a NASA tour as the demonstration showed a man holding a block of tile in his hand and having the same tile simultaneously heated a few inches away with a blow torch to a red hot temperature. Anything that can dissipate heat and insulate this well would save billions a year by just having it on our roofs and walls. But no, this is space technology and someone could use it for missles so we lose again.
Excellent post bardamu.
The current situation is due to a LACK of economic development. But economic development is not about a stagnant technological base and the looting of existing resources. Our real problem is people who would strangle our capacity for real economic development, whether they be speculators on Wall Street, or the current crop of Luddites. The universe btw is an infinite resource except for those with silly religious beliefs like the author's.
"Our real problem is people who would strangle our capacity for real economic development, whether they be speculators on Wall Street, or the current crop of Luddites"
Somewhat contradictory argument unless you are talking about appropriate technology.
The universe may as well not be an infinite resource if we kill ourselves before we can develop the technology to exploit our own solar system, not to mention others hundreds of light years away.
As soon as a politician or pundit says we need economic growth, my sold out bastard alarm goes off.
ezeflyer,
Nice to hear from another person with a similar alarm system. It sure is getting noisy around here.
think the unthinkable? you are an animal, same as your dog or cat, same as your cow or horse, same as your dolphin or orangutan...
the ultimate deception, that humans, alone, have the right to destroy anything and everything here that they whim, must fall...
economy is a vapor...ripping up and toxifying the living planet and all of the myriad organisms is a reality that must end...there is no justification for the destruction of the natural world...not a life, or a job...none...
we must walk out of our houses, remove our clothes, and rejoin the wild...
beautiful!!
This thread is interesting but a little perplexing...Everyone here is very intelligent, but can ANYONE tell me the medium you are using (internet, computer you are using, etc) to criticize "economic growth" as you see it would even exist today without being built on the back of a carbon-based economy...Now be HONEST, please!!If you want things to be different or reformed (move to cleaner energy, et al) that is fine, but to say Capitalism is exploitive when it has brought MORE progress/higher standard of living to MORE people in a short period of time, is not serious discussion. Can it be better, absolutely, but those "$2.00 a-day"(how about the billions that are NOT living below subsistence during the last 100 years) subsisting people are NOT going to bet better off with your solutions...Think about this--how many of YOU really believe your should be living at the high standard of living you presently have today? Can you at least give a little credit to our present/past econ system...Please dont insult me or use the example of slavery (yes, I acknowledge that a portion of our standard of living is based on it---reprehensible...)..Thank you for your time and attention...
The point is not that the media we use did not nor does not depend on a hydrocarbon-backed economy but that it cannot be sustained by that economy.
Similarly, the point is not that capitalism did not bring production and technological advance, but that it does not humanely distribute wealth and does not create nutritive, ergonomic lifestyles.
Put otherwise, yes, one class exploits the other, much as do aristocracies and yes, slaveholders. One can support monarchy on the same basis that you support capitalism: capitalism required the social organization of directed agricultural labor to develop as it did, and then it required an evolution from monarchy.
The argument that "our" high standard of living is due to capitalism resembles the truth, but only slightly. Certainly a largely capitalist system is producing, though it gains greatly from its socialist aspects in ways that few acknowledge.
Of course you are correct to insist that disemboweling the system without replacing it would create great problems. However, the idea that the system is not exploitative because it produces or that it should not be criticized and ultimately replaced because we share a dependence on having some system in place is just a non sequitur. On the simplest level, if I slaughter a pig, the pig is not less exploited because I enjoy roast pork. But I take you to mean something more subtle. You appear to have the idea, like many people, that most prosperity comes from this exploitation, and does so inevitably.
This is false.
Should we have a "high standard of living"? What does "standard of living" mean to you? If that means a 7/11 full of scented water and food substitutes and a shiny 8-cylinder tin phallus, maybe not. However, I suspect that you mean should we have good, clean food; decent, attractive shelter; interesting, rich education; and leisure time and resonant, informative entertainment. If so, YES, we should have that and the whole world should, too.
People from all over the political spectrum have gotten stuck on the idea that this requires capitalism. Sure, mechanized production developed that way just as large-scale farming developed under feudalism, but that does not mean things have to stay that way or even that they can.
For instance, do I receive the produce of exploited people? Yes. However, at the same time, I am exploited in turn - and not by those poor people. My taxes go to pay the soldiers, the mercenaries, the technology that goes to break strikes and popular revolts in other countries so that their wages can be held down -
-------------------and get this: here's the point ----------------
- so that my wages can be held down and my control over production reduced.
Yours too, most likely.
So, ultimately, my prosperity, insofar as it exists and to the extent that it does exist, does depend on capitalism having existed, but not on capitalism continuing.
Further, insofar as people are deciding what to produce for profit, not to fulfill need, they continue to plunder resources to make useless things in non-sustainable ways.
So my prosperity, insofar as it may exist, depends on capitalism, at least as it currently exists, with its rampant corporatocracy, ceasing.
And as to replacements, let us feel our way. But I should say an end to corporate personhood, a facilitation of collective ownership, and guarantees of food, water, healthcare, and education would feel pretty good as a start.
It always seems to boil down to environment vs. jobs. For some reason, jobs are the holy grail...why?
We work at jobs to get money to go to the store to buy things that we need to live. And, we have to keep creating jobs by creating new things that meet new "needs", and we make these items disposable or in some way with planned obsolecence.
So as the population has exploded there have to be more and more jobs, meaning more crap that takes energy to make, use and dispose of. Its such a vicious cycle.
Beyond the obvious population issue (can't keep growing!), we may need to accept that a sustainable world has a limited number of actual "go to work" jobs. Many if not most of us probably should just cut out the extra steps and work to meet some of our basic needs- that is, grow some of our food, insulate our homes so we use less energy to heat, build an energy-source such as a windmill or install solar panels, put in a water barrel and figure out a system to reuse grey water, learn how to entertain ourselves without turning on a screen, repair clothing and tools, etc. These are a lot of what we go to work to get money to pay someone to do anyway...in the meantime wasting a lot of energy, becoming more and more removed from the natural world, and getting increasingly stressed out.
Stop the economy, I want to get off!
Excellent article and comments.
What do we mean by growth and for whom, the Big Banks or those two billion people living on 2 bucks a day?
And money can't buy me Love.
"And money can't buy me Love."
Now that's what I call a real man. :)
to me, this is the essence of the article: "Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings - within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times."
Thank you Commondreams. This well-written, insightful and prescient essay was a pleasure to read, although, Mr. Jackson stops short of identifying the primary source of our present socio-economic woes .... the structure of civilization itself.
The Neolithic Revolution - beginning some 12,000 years ago as the Earth rapidly warmed - is a long, complex tale but it's most important element is that human beings did not bio-culturally "progress" to domestication and cultivation. No! our ancestors were forced to it in order to survive in changing conditions. The archeological evidence for that claim (coming from the Levant Region of present day Lebanon / Syria) is compelling and convincing.
The emergence of agriculture was a survival strategy that borrowed heavily from the future to enrich the present. Even in our post-modern times with tools, seeds and fertilizers aplenty, if you've ever tended a large summer garden, defended then stored it's produce, you understand exactly what I'm writing.
Anyway, civilization with it's organized religions, perpetual warfare, monument building, division of labor, specialized skills, the illusion of "human progress", social hierarchies, pyramids of power and wealth, ever-expanding human populations, coin economies, commerce, empires, writing and ever-refined tools of resource exploitation are simply the on-going outcomes to a sedentary subsistence.
Nearly all the problems within civilization are directly caused by the structure of civilization. And thus, there are no programs, plans nor political movements based in civilized reasoning that can dramatically change the mould without destroying the cake. Yet, civilization has lasted some 5,500 years already, and that's remarkable, but it's mostly because the Earth is bountiful, resilient and very large.
In time, world civilization will collapse, perhaps in a firestorm, hopefully not, but in any case, space for something new to develop will be created. Those who can adapt will thrive.
The capitalist economic system is exhausted and will soon collapse. From the time of the collapse of feudalism and its birth in the Industrial Revolution, capitalism was always destined to become a dominant global force. Globalization will be a historic marker as the zenith of its existence. But globalization robbed the system of the only thing that kept its fatal internal contradictions at bay—-growth. Capitalism has conquered the planet, it has nowhere else to feed. The time of its death is now at hand.
French workers recently rigged their closing factory with gasoline bombs and threatened to blow it up without a meager $42,632 severance payment. Chinese workers rioted at their factory and killed the boss. These skirmishes around the world are signs the two most powerful groups that capitalism creates are beginning to engage in a final battle for power. Marx called them the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and the proletariat, the working class. It can be most simply described as the clash between the wealthy and the working people.
The fight is inevitable and it will destroy one class or the other. Then on the ruins of the old system, the class that prevails will reorganize society along the lines of their dictates. If the bourgeoisie remains on top it will not mean the restoration of capitalism to health and stability. It will mean the depopulation of the planet and the enslavement of man in a world described in the dystopian literature of Orwell, Huxley, and Atwood.
Meanwhile, on our side of the class struggle, there is admittedly no US political party or other formation which expresses the destiny of the working class to power and socialism. Class consciousness would seem to be a sentiment in short supply. But think about it, would not the United States be the last place where a consciousness of themselves as a class would seize the minds of working people? That’s what empire, that’s what imperialism, that’s what racism functions to do.
Class consciousness can develop very quickly in a people though! It is on the rise in the US right now in the reaction to the Wall Street bailouts and the banker’s coup that is underway. It will accelerate as the material cocoon provided by the world’s dominant economy wears thin.
Workers, united across all artificial boundaries created by capitalism, whether nation, race, sex, or religion are the only hope now. This is the only force capable of staying the hand of the bourgeoisie and insuring the human experiment “shall not perish from the earth”, to borrow Lincoln’s phraseology.
In your circle, however large or small that may be, in everything you write and say, draw the boundary lines clearly for people between the opposing forces in this final class war. Don’t confuse them with Democrats and Republicans. The ruling class is wealthy, we work for a living. Build our forces by raising class consciousness and giving every worker the best chance of making the right decisions in the battles just over the horizon now.
No matter the very real dangers provoked, it must begin to be spoken by a warrior vanguard: socialism is the only way humankind will live into the distant future on this planet. Only a working class with a consciousness of itself and united across all racial, national and cultural boundaries is capable of seizing power. Only a working class in power will see to the end of this madness and willingly share our available resources for the sake of human survival.
First, thanks to the many excellent comments here today. A pleasure to read.
And I admire the verve of Malcolm Martin’s comment and the encouragement to unite.
"The fight is inevitable and it will destroy one class or the other. Then on the ruins of the old system, the class that prevails will reorganize society along the lines of their dictates. If the bourgeoisie remains on top it will not mean the restoration of capitalism to health and stability. It will mean the depopulation of the planet and the enslavement of man in a world described in the dystopian literature of Orwell, Huxley, and Atwood."
I try but I can’t look at this with optimism. It very much appears that The SYSTEM has already ensured that it will come out on top.
True, class-consciousness can develop very quickly in a people. But after "the fight" (with civil unrest, depression, revolution, war, famine, disease, WOM, pandemics) a heavily reduced world population will be left reeling but still under TOTAL CONTROL. Total surveillance, electronic identification, cashless society, shock doctrine and 'security' services will still be tools of and for the ELITE.
Capitalism is the metier of this sociopathic elite, even historic socialistic side sprouts have been usurped (therefore capitalism and socialism are not necessarily mutually exclusive), and the ingrained greed and consumerism of humans is the facilitator for the SYSTEM.
“Capitalism has conquered the planet, it has nowhere else to feed.” It is feeding now on it’s own ‘body’, inwards, devouring the very substance that is used to work for the elite: us.
Widlam above points out: “there are no programs, plans nor political movements based in civilized reasoning that can dramatically change the mould without destroying the cake.” I agree. Apathy and consumerism has morphed into perplexed paralysis.
"There is no US political party or other formation that expresses the destiny of the working class to power and socialism", because (almost) the whole of US society constitutes a ‘ruling class’ due to the exploitation of foreign populations by this system. ‘Workers unite’ sounds good but you can’t have your cake (destroyed) and eat it too.
Dialectical materialism originates from two major aspects of Marx's philosophy. One is his transformation of Hegel's idealistic understanding of dialectics into a materialist (political) one. The other is his core idea that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles".
And herein lies, I believe, one of the obstacles for formation and unity of a working class in the USA: US society has not felt the pressure for class struggle. A struggle for consumerism yes, but not class struggle. If and when that ignition point is reached remains to be seen.
In the meantime ‘1984’ is coming to a theater near you.
Yachtie, that's quite a bleak outlook you put forward there. And you're quite right, there may be war, there may be pestilence, there may be famine. Hell, we may see all four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. But let's not concede to the ruling class before the battle is even waged.
Seems to me you give too much deference to the ELITES as you call them. You make them into all powerful omnipotent beings. Hey, they put their pants on one leg at a time just like us. Anytime you're nervous about the power of the ruling class just picture Dick Cheney naked.
But seriously, their power and control over us is based on an effective economic machine. When that breaks down, as it is doing now, they become very vulnerable because we (the working class) have overwhelming numbers. There's a secret they will stop at nothing to hide from us: We can take them!
Well, I like your enthusiasm.
Maybe I am a bit too pessimistic.
There is a certain chance for true change: According to Chaos Theory, (dynamical) SYSTEMS are highly sensitive to initial conditions. As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of error, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. That is, tiny differences in the starting state of the system can lead to enormous differences in the final state of the system even over fairly small timescales.
Sounds like a pretty accurate description of the trajectory of causalities we experience.
Recommended info:
If you have the time watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549
And if you can stomach it read: “Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
On the first paragraph, you need to distinguish between which type of capitalism you are referring to. Regulated capitalism did not conquer the planet. It was disaster capitalism that did the damage. Read Naomi Klein's book "Shock Doctrine" for details. While I generally favor socialism, I also favor regulated capitalism that does not unfairly reward/defend on against another unfairly. Socialism is the best system for safety nets for us all. At some point, however, some wiggle room might be useful and that's where regulated capitalism, not unfettered capitalism, steps in.
Jennifer, I know you mean well. But you should be able to tell from malcolm martin's post that he hardly needs your suggestions about what books he should read.
You've been chirping several times today about this alleged difference between "regulated" and "unregulated" capitalism. Actually, there isn't much difference. The nature of capitalism is such that it ALWAYS wants to throw off all regulation. The capitalist class only accepts regulation when it knows it has no choice, as was the case in the 1930's.
But the very minute regulation was imposed, the capitalist class was busy looking for ways to throw off these restrictions, the moment they got the chance. They had to wait for about 40 years before they could realistically start moving in this direction, so that most of the people who remembered the Depression were either dead, or no longer remembered the role capitalists played in causing it.
In other words, "regulated" capitalism is just the temporary form that unfettered capitalism takes, when it's forced to temporarily hide its real nature. It will never STAY unregulated, any more than someone would voluntarily stay in jail if they had the means to escape. And in a capitalist society, big business ALWAYS has the means to escape restrictions, sooner or later.
If you look at the bankers' coup (aka "the bailout"), you will see that the bankers very openly bought the whole US government, of both parties. No matter if it was Bush or Obama in the White House, Goldman Sachs and its allies controlled every single powerful institution in the govt. People like this will never submit to any sort of government regulation, because they OWN the government. In fact, they essentially ARE the government. So there is no prospect whatever for serious "regulating" of the banks.
To put it another way, you would virtually need a revolution just to get the US government to even seriously consider doing to the banks today, what they actually did do, during the New Deal (and even that was much less "revolutionary" than many people suppose).
I hadn't looked at capitalism as one and the same regardless of which type. I always thought that unfettered capitalism was all about rigging the rules to lopsidedly support one class against another. I shall examine your post in detail and think hard about it. I have never seen capitalism being discussed like that but I shall seek more details on that thought of yours. Thanks for the insight.
P.S.: I've been open to both capitalism and socialism and while education originally tried to brainwash me into thinking that capitalism was good and socialism was bad, I looked up more information on the net. I've seen the pros and cons of each system and have been used to favoring socialism for the basics but having an open heart for regulated capitalism. I guess that could be my weakness.
Jennifer, I have read Ms. Klein's "Disaster Capitalism" but I'm not ready to let her supplant Karl Marx as my guide to understanding the way the world works.
Dialectical materialism was the approach to the study and understanding of nature employed by Karl Marx. Dialectics from the Greek “dialego” means to discourse, to debate. It is a method or an art of arriving at the truth by exposing contradictions in an argument and overcoming them. (For a demonstration of this approach in modern day classroom, see the teacher played by Ryan Gosling in the film “Half Nelson”.)
The elements of the dialectical method as a tool for understanding the world.
Nature is a connected and integral whole, no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken in isolation.
Nature is in a state of continuous movement and change, something is always being born and growing and other things are disintegrating and dying away. (Capitalism is now in its death throes and will soon give way to something new, Marx predicted that would be socialism. According to the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, “the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame systematically flaring up and systematically dying down.”)
When change comes in nature it is rapid and abrupt but only after a series of nearly imperceptible and gradual changes. (The work of Charles Darwin is important confirmation of this truth and provides strong evidence that socialism will be born not out of reforms of capitalism but a revolutionary episode that destroys the old and ushers in the new.)
P.S. Thanks RichM for helping all of us get a better handle on the nature of capitalism. Your analysis is airtight.
Ok, thanks for the heads up and I do agree with you about Mother Nature. Having studied Sioux Rose's articles from her website, in most ways I can see how capitalism can be associated with Mars, the Roman god of war, while socialism can be associated with Venus, the goddess of love. Doesn't Europe have a mixture of socialism and capitalism by the way unlike the US which is all capitalism at its worst?
Jennifer, capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. They are the thesis and antithesis that fit the model Marx used to understand human society. He got the basic concept from Hegel and modified it to more accurately reflect reality. It's called dialectical materialism. Where there is capitalism, there is no socialism. The advent of socialism will wipe out capitalism and its masters.
Capitalism is an economic system that establishes a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production. Their absolute control of the economy gives them control of the government. The government is simply a tool of their domination.
For instance Goldman Sachs dictates to the U.S. government, which is now little more than a collection of stooges. Goldman alum Hank Paulson didn't ask, he told Bush and Obama, Democrats and Republicans, that they would turn over $700 billion of the accumulated wealth of working Americans in the so-called bank bailout.
Socialism is an economic system that establishes a dictatorship of the working class, not "the majority", the working class. When and if capitalism doesn't destroy the planet on its way out and we get to socialism, it will wipe out every vestige of capitalism. The former wealthy ruling group will disappear. It will become illegal to advocate the return of the capitalist system just as it was illegal to advocate the restoration of the British monarchy after the American Revolution.
It will not be for the faint of heart.
There are somethings I learned about capitalism and maybe they're the wrong things but here goes. Supposedly in a capitalism, we're to have a lot of choices but in socialism, there's supposed to be none. Looking at the disaster capitalism that has ruined this country, I have believed that in a real capitalism, big banks would not be given special bailouts nor would corporate agribusiness be given lopsided subsidizations while small farmers be driven further into poverty. It's supposed to be that every business big or small is free to grow or collapse but that no bailouts be given regardless of size. However, I have stumbled across the dark side of capitalism in my life whereby different classes of people get rewarded and punished differently. Most white collared crimes that have been made "legal" would have blue collared workers punished for committing those same crimes. I have suspected at first that this was part of unfettered capitalism and not regulated capitalism. However, if rewarding and punishing different classes for the same actions is the basis of all capitalism, then I can see why this system is inherently devilish. For socialism to win without resorting to regulated capitalism, there has to be a way to convince skeptics of socialism that choices exist and that not everything is fixed. This looks like another interesting challenge to explore. If I have to lead a company someday, I don't want to slit its wrist just to scavenge profits desperately. I already seen every company, except the ones Obama and the rest bailed out, fail from this kind of vicious business practice.
"Supposedly in a capitalism, we're to have a lot of choices but in socialism, there's supposed to be none."
Socialism basically means a limit on wealth accumulation (e.g. limiting enterprise size and asset ownership to ten man-powers) so we end up with production owned by the workers and the division of labor evaporated so that workers are also managers. There is no restriction on choices, except to accumulate power over others, and general irresponsibility. Elites will squawk hysterically at this restriction as "no choices". We may safely ignore them.
I wouldn't mind limiting the wealth accumulation of companies. The least it would do is prevent the greedy top guys from slitting the company's wrists just to please the stockholders at the expense of gutting the employees. I just remembered another misleading concept I came across back when I took Financing in college. Since we're talking capitalism, it seems that pleasing the stockholders at the expense of gutting employees is framed as a "good" thing. For all the macho egotistical talk by the greedy looney tunes on "being your own boss", socialism seems to offer more of it without the big talk whereas capitalism has the weakness of deluding people into believing that they can be big bosses overnight only to silently strip them of what little they made.
Sioux Rose
JB: Thank you for bringing up my previous writing. Just as the organic expression of life requires generally equal input from both genders, the best societies own a mix of socialism and capitalistic elements. Human nature, long under Mars rules, has been habituated to a certain measure of competition. The athletes who compete against one another all develop their bodies as a result. But if feats end up literally destroying competitors, then the model breaks down. As you pointed out, Europe, an older society than that of America and one that has always offered great support to the arts, has fashioned a social weave that demonstrates a more ostensible appreciation of Venus. The most evident example is socialized medicine/health-care, as opposed to mega-size investments in militarism.
America has been programmed into an uber: macho identity and it's helped foment war after war and an incredibly well-financed (largely by taxpayer dollars) arms industry. From there, we see similar inroads domestically as something like 5 million US citizens are within "the criminal justice system." The nonsensical punitive rules around recreational non-violent drugs certainly factor into this mix. The Judeo-Christian ethos has a very punitive, war-like set of beliefs; and these have been twisted to give millions of citizens a twisted view of the Deity and waht configures as so-called "God's" will. The result currently is seen in numerous policies that earn the designation, "The Banality of Evil," with torture high on the list.
You are growing a lot from this forum. Rich M is definitely one of "our" political luminaries endowed with laser-sharp logic. I encourage you to listen to what he has to say. None of it is canned. I admire his analyses deeply.
I share most of the anger RichM has on the political system though I have to admit from his and my earlier conversations that I'm probably a weak socialist while he's a strong one but since he has probably witnessed more similar to BeForKids, there's more they know that I'll probably find out as time goes by. I saw RichM's posts from the archives and admire his style. I can't say whether taking a hybrid of capitalism and socialism is necessarily a good thing. Interestingly, I get praised by some for accepting that idea while others remind me that this could be a weakness into getting sucked into unfettered capitalism. RichM has just given me a nice homework assignment to look up the details on how capitalism is inherently disastrous, regulated or unfettered. This is getting interesting.
"The problem is in ourselves."
After all the ages of human beings on this planet, we are at the epitome of our "flourishing" as a species. I very much doubt there is going to be any renewal of "shared prosperity" because such a thing has always fallen under the teeth of predators.
I do agree that what Mr. Jackson calls for is vital to our specie's survival, but I see little evidence that the majority of humans are able to see beyond their own parochial desires for material prosperity and escaping from the natural ecology. They're bored.
I am an artist, an environmentalist, and a gardener. I know I am far from "perfect." Living within the abundance of the midwest, I am confronted daily by the enormous ecological abuse which results from the ignorance of nature even, and often especially, by the very people who work with the land. The vast majority of the rest of society would much rather waste energy travelling elsewhere to be awed and entertained rather than to have to try to learn about any of the intricacy of their own regional ecology - and it becomes less with each passing day.
I believe some of the worst violators of the natural world are the various religious organizations which emphasize that this planet is merely a stepping stone to the next better place. The arrogant indifference to the ecology of this planet (beyond the material self-serving) is the most prominent mindset of the judaic-christian-muslim dismissal of nature. Keep pumping out your familial genetic domination because god is a man ( or is it man is god? ) and you must be proud.
When a majority of people understand that freedom is irresponsible and interconnectedness beyond humanity is the truth, then we may find our sustainable future. If you want to understand what it means to "flourish", take a good long look at the Passenger Pigeon.
"Growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell."
Finally, questioning growth! And by what financial mechanism is growth driven?
The quantification of debt wrongfully applies the algebraic concept of exponential growth - compounding interest - upon money. The distinction between usury and interest is an arbitrary legal determination with no basis in mathematics. Nothing can grow forever at an ever-increasing rate. As time moves on, the emphasis of ever-increasing growth becomes omnipresent, is quantified and institutionalized in the societal structure, encouraging over consumption, over development, and excessive expectations, pushing economic stress to its upper limit of expansion, eventually inciting conflict and spawning War to insure growth.
Economic systems of capitalism, communism, socialism, imperialism, colonialism, totalitarianism, fascism, nazism, monarchism, corporatism, and all other centralist monetary-isms maintain the monopolized control of money, and hence the control of society itself, through their own brand of Legal Tender that embraces compounding interest and excludes other forms of money from the Market.
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/9/18/1236759.html
Mammon sez:
"Economic systems of capitalism, communism, socialism, imperialism, colonialism, totalitarianism, fascism, nazism, monarchism, corporatism, and all other centralist monetary-isms maintain the monopolized control of money, and hence the control of society itself, through their own brand of Legal Tender that embraces compounding interest and excludes other forms of money from the Market."
***************
The very real answer to the very real problem you present is debt repudiation on a regular basis (every 7 years or so) and the outlawing of the sale of land (it can only be leased for a specific period--no longer than 49 years--after which it returns to the original owner).
These two measures would instantly eliminate either the exponential accumulation of debt soaking up the value of all wealth (because compounded debt grows faster than wealth ever could or should) and the concentration of property ownership (which is the ultimate source from which all wealth is derived) in the hands of the few. It's called the year of release and Jubilee and it can be found in the Old Testement and goes back to the Summarian culture of the fertile crescent.
An excellent and exhaustive academic analysis of this system can be found in Dr. Michael Hudson's "The Lost Tradition of Biblical Debt Cancelation" at:
http://www.michael-hudson.com
look for the title under the "articles" button.
Poet
I quite agree with the author that we need to get away from an economic model based on indefinite growth (and towards a steady state model based on sustainability). However, the 800 pound elephant in the room (which the author failed to mention) is human OVERPOPULATION. Unless we address this issue, and hopefully in a proactive and humane manner rather than waiting for nature or wars to run their course, the future will be bleak as we run up against the natural limits of our finite world.
"human OVERPOPULATION. Unless we address this issue"
You're blaming a "thing" instead of the culprits perpetrating the crime. That's like blaming the steel bars for your imprisonment.
Your point has been raised plenty on Common Dreams and the conclusion is that we can't reach all 6 billion people with the message to stop procreating. But we CAN reach our fellow USans with the message to stop feeding the greed machine. All sorts of dominos that need to fall will fall in such an approach, and the insitutions of global law and order will rise again, out of the ashes of USan greed fanaticism. Then we'll have such things as mass awareness of the responsibility of the global citizen to help protect the biosphere, including basic rights for all.
"and towards a steady state model based on sustainability" . . . and there's the rub!
As Newton declared, as he asked for my advice, clobbering together his second law of thermodynamics "Entropy"
NOTHING IS SUSTAINABLE . . . jeeesh . . .
Fortunately we don't have to worry about entropy since everything is ultimately powered by the Sun, at least for a few billion years.
The sooner we realize this fundamental truth the better. If only we had fundamentalist Sun worshippers instead of the current lot maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
" Things" are not sustainable but what the mind thinks is nothing is sustainability itself. When the mind has no object of observation being presented to it, and because it is confined to relative meaning ,then devoid of the latter it concludes that there is nothing. When thinking ceases and we realize that awareness continues within it self then what was thought to be nothing or emptiness is exposed to be fullness. this experience of fullness is not explainable or provable to detractors or believers. It is what the believers and non believers appear inside of .
Jeeesh x ???????????
You remind me of the sirios I met on Alternet. I was a bit too hard on him at first but I did atone for that and lightened up some. I love his mysterious posts on Alternet. :)
It is I, Jennifer. Thanks for the tip about Common Dreams.
No problem sirios. Welcome aboard. :)
P.S.: I do visit the other site back and forth as well since there are some good folks on that site too and once in a while, I feel like helping them out with some thinking of my own and/or great thoughts and ideas from here to share there. Today, Alternet turned out to be filled with too much social issues stuff so I thought I'd check back at the end of the day. It turns out there are more than 600 comments on the second article Alternet posted on Obama's birth certificate. On the first one they posted earlier, I just made it clear that I thought that at this point, Obama's birth certificate is just another non-issue. Frankly, I don't even care if an alien from outer space is in charge of the White House and thus running the country. Can whoever is in charge in Washington please actually represent the people's interests? Few in Congress make their best effort while the WH is just as bad as the last one. Seeing how this administration has gotten worse beyond the fears of some of us who voted 3rd party and a hell of a lot faster than most of us feared, I forgive those who regret voting Obama or Mccain and welcome them aboard. I'll admit that even last year, I didn't even realize that I was actually voting on the issues more than just my being a huge fan of Nader. In 2000, Nader sounded more dynamic than Gore. In 2004, I was angry when the Democrats forced Nader off the ballots in several states and again from the presidential debates. In 2008, I went insane having to put up with Obama flip-flopping issue after issue while Nader held to his and I agreed with most of Nader's positions while Obama ended up looking like an unknown. There's so much to learn on this site and it just gets more interesting even if it can sound depressing at times.
You are right JB, don't sweat the small stuff. It is a smokescreen, a decoy, a distraction for the looming awareness for the unfathomable deeds of the system.
The smoking gun 9/11 and the crime behind the bailout will spoil and fester until the system is exposed. It will not be a pretty sight.
newton did not know, nor did darwin and malthus, that entropy is balanced by syntropy, and that the function of life in the universe is syntropic ..
thank you for this yummy tidbit...syntropy...
The real problem with the concept of a "growing economy" is what gets counted and what doesn't. The real work done by mothers, caretakers of the very old and the very sick, those that further civilization through participation in the arts, gardeners and other protectors of the environment doesn't get counted as an economic endeavor. Only projects that can be defined in terms of dollar gain get counted--and some of those such as education are not captured very well at all.
We can grow these human aspects of our society as manufacturing declines. How do the teachers, mothers, care-givers get support? From those that have the means, of course. What other possibility is there? We can grow (in the broadest sense) only by diminishing the gap between the over-consuming rich and the rest of us. The new definition of economic growth must go hand-in-hand with economic justice.
Sioux Rose
DROSERA: Lovely post! You have outlined the shift in values from the Mars-rules (Mammon assisted) society to one that lends virtue to Venus. The current species of rabid resource depletion capitalism that treats the world as a virus with the living world its host MUST change. And it's apt to shift in the manner you describe, although plausibly the transition phase will be neither peaceful nor harmonic.
When we realize that there is already enough wealth for all of humanity the problem then becomes one of the distribution of the sufficient wealth we already posess.
Before we all start drooling at the prospect of defunding Goldman-Sachs, Bill Gates, or the Hunt Family of Texas, realize that even someone living off of social security retirement is "rich" compared to a simple majority of the billions of poor and desperate people in South Asia, China, Africa, and Latin America.
Poet
We failed to control our populations, properly regulate our factories, and properly protect and preserve our natural resources. What did we expect would happen? For once, can we get these children out of the sandbox and put some adults in charge before it is too late?
Now, this article begins to get at the heart of the matter, the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet. It cannot be stated more clearly. If the obviousness of this escapes the reader then denial is at play. I defy anyone to create infinity out of a finite number of parts. The present financial system is based more in clever psychology than in the manipulation of numbers. The system is based on the natural desire for "more', not more of the intrinsic values of life, love, compassion, bliss, peacefulness etc., but more of greedy satiation of the senses, which has denial as a hidden characteristic that separates us from our natural essence of consciousness awake to itself, or love, compassion, peace,etc. This essence is what all of the above reside in and is what we are and what we seek. we have been brainwashed into believing that if we grow the economy indefinitely then everyone will become wealthy and finally be able to stop the frantic search for Prosperity. Our methods to achieve satisfaction are madness. We wage war to create peace, We kill to preserve life, We collect money and objects to give us power and make us feel safe, but create danger because others now want to take what we have. The list and the search goes on and on, acting as an obstacle instead of a giver of what we already are as silent prosperity. Real prosperity is what subject and object appear in, objective prosperity is illusory and finite.
Sioux Rose
SIRIOS: I know how abstract some of my thinking can be, so permit me to act as translator to your post: the individual who experiences satisfaction through close, loving relationships is less-inclined to fall into an acquisition frenzy, the type of which too many take for the path out of their unhappiness. (They would fit nicely into the Mick Jagger, "I can't get no... satisfaction" crowd.)
Robert E. Lane, Professor Emeritus published a study (this was shared on CD many moons ago) entitled, "The Loss of Happiness In Market Democracies." It concluded that more persons value nurturing, loving ties over fiscal status and its toys. Judging from the "masters of the universe" stealing the pubic's money in a number of ingenious and not-so-ingenious scams, regardless of how MUCH they have, they still feel empty. Nothing from the tangible plane (things) can fill the void inside; for that aspect belongs to something NOT of this world, and tends to be intangible and nonreceptive to Madonna's prescription in the form of: "I'm a Material Girl."
Eventually, cancer will almost certainly destroy your body. It makes no difference whether you're being treated by an experienced oncologist or are taking laetrile and coffee enemas. The human race is doing the latter. The almost certainly becomes certainly.
Historically if you do not have a growing economy you have a dying society.
I would suggest that a growing economy is not always an expanding economy....something on the order of buggy whips. That activity was replaced by more efficient means. Computers certainly help the economy without expanding it per se. They simply replaced typewriters, letters, etc.
The real problem may lie in an expanding population, which provides the need for more basic economic activity.
This is not a statement of fact but just a possibility, a thought. Any thoughts on why I'd be wrong or right....or both?
Language is important here. What do you consider collapse? Why must the well being of an economy be measured by economic (GDP) growth? There are many societies that collapsed DUE to "Growth" throughout history.
There are far too many definitions of "Growth" to make the statement that without it a society will collapse.
Lets speak to your conjecture on population growth. Flash Back to Mesopotamia 4000 years ago. The land was rich and fertile. It was wooded with trees. Along comes man to build his cities. They overuse the land. They log every tree within hundreds of miles of their civilization. The society collapses.
This a much smaller population. Their growing ECONOMIES demanded an ever growing demand on the regions resources. Did this translate into too large a population?
I would suggest that the size of population had much less to do with that collapse as did HOW that population ran its economy.
I would suggest that the desire to OVERPRODUCE so as to earn WEALTH in the form of payment for ones crops the root cause. Instead of producing food or logging trees in order to sustain themselves, they OVERPRODUCED food and OVERLOGGED trees for export and to earn WEALTH.
In overproducing they could ship product, be it foodstuffs or other goods to other markets. This stressed their own enviroment and or caused those other markets to overproduce in order to "compete".
Fundamentaly we have to rethink "wealth" Currently we measure it as the amount of SURPLUS we produce over our needs.
Language is indeed important. The traditional measurement of an economy is the use of GDP (the $ value of the economy's total output of goods and services). In this traditional measure unpaid work is not included. So the contributions of stay-at-home parents and volunteers to the economy are discounted. This service, neglected in GDP calculations, without doubt contributes to the happiness and welfare of citizens.
Not only is infinite growth impossible but exponential growth is also impossible on a finite planet. Exponential growth is simply a continuous increase with the rate of growth determining the doubling time. Population growth and consumption of all commodities exhibit the same graph type, gradual increase moving toward a near vertical slope over the past decade or two. Everything that is extracted from the Earth has a renewal rate that exceeds our consumption rate by several orders of magnitude. Thus new oil deposits will form over millions of years. Nickel ores extracted from ancient asteroid impacts will be replenished by new impacts or from the Earth's molten core by tectonic plate movement and volcanoes. However we are rapidly running out of high grade ore deposits.
Once the three basic needs of food, shelter and clothing are met we are faced with wants and choices conditioned, in Western society, by the corporate market economy. The rat race to maintain status does not bring happiness and exposes the rotten core of market economies driven by planned obsolescence. Since the entire economy is measured by GDP and much of it concerns producing obsolescent toys then there is a critical need to develop a new measure of an economy. This should focus more on lifestyle satisfaction as has been proposed for the happiness economy. While I think much needs to be done in improving and exploring this idea, I consider it to be an effective way to get out of the trap of continuously increasing GDP as a measure of satisfaction for economists and politicians.
Sioux Rose
THE PROF: Some excellent points. In my view Dr. Seuss was a shaman, and did his best to leave behind a treatise of spiritual wisdom for children. In his wonderful book, "The Lorax" he distills the lesson(s) we have been volleying around in this particular thread. Casting the argument to children, he basically asks them to examine the "development" model that calls for turning most of nature into an ash heap. Some schools didn't want this book in their libraries! Dr. Seuss understood there is a mechanism (psychology + advertising = programming) which twists human nature into suddenly desiring what it never needed in the first place! He terms this "thneeds." An apt modern T-shirt might read "Thneeds Not!"
I was considering collapse as the economy collapses, people's standard of living goes into the toliet, hunger becomes real, etc.
Overproduction can indeed produce the exact result you speak of. Its happened many times before and you gave excellent examples of it.
My point was that a growing economy does not always mean an expanding economy. Or perhaps I should say I was thinking it doesn't have too. I was thinking of Switzerland, but thats not a good example, they control their population tightly.
I may be using logical deduction that produces the wrong answer. Thanks for the thoughts.
I forgot to say I don't think GDP is a good measure of an economy. Employment and wages would be a good indicator.
I see this largely as a semantic issue, but an important one.
I would suggest the notion of a "growing" economy in the modern sense is largely a misnomer, because economy should include notions such as saving, frugality, efficient use of energy and the highest and best use of resources, human labor included. In that perspective, we can consider how what we have often called a "growing" economy may actually be referring to a weak or even diminishing economy.
I would also suppose that the measure of a "growing" economy involves some measure of the population which benefits from it. In that view, our alleged improving global economy has been shrinking for decades. Arguably, so has our national economy.
Without this more comprehensive version of true economy, it is easy to see how an expanding population can create an expanding economy that is actually no more efficient or productive than before.
In the sense that one cannot stand still - either you are moving forward or falling behind - then I suppose it is okay to surmise the lack of a growing economy equates with a dying society. On the other hand, in the sense that a sustainable economy is key to a growing population, I might suggest if you do not have a balanced economy you have a sick inequitable society.
Excellent. Thanks! Between you and GW I got a clearer picture of what I was trying to visualize. Amazing how often a few thoughts from different sources can bring focus or clarity to what you were trying to see.
Semantics are always important. GW and I went at it over I forgotten even what it was) something for two days before discovering we were agreeing.
My thanks again to you both!
I made this argument a couple years ago, but more simply: You cannot have an infinitely expanding economy on a finite planet.
It's perhaps ironic that two stories here today contradict each other. One says demand for oil will peak and the price decline, the other says the opposite.
It's tough for us laymen to know what to think.
Its best just ignore the clowns on the bozo bus.
Basically a well written article as Tim Jackson explains that "Prosperity for the few ... is no foundation for a civilized society" as well as a "commitment and flourishing in a finite world." It would seem that Jackson is rightly pointing out that capitalism is a failed system. Yet despite this obvious reality Jackson has refrained from writing the one word that would be a counterpoint to capitalism and that is the word Marxism, a system that has never truly been attempted by any country in the way that Karl Marx had envisioned it. But with all the flaws that capitalism contains that one word seems to be anathema even among progressive web sites like Common Dreams. It would appear that to mention Marxism in an article would be, to borrow from Tim Jackson, to think the unthinkable.
By Marxism do you mean Soviet-style Communism?
q
Erroll wrote, "... Marxism, a system that has never truly been attempted by any country in the way that Karl Marx had envisioned it." Therefore, he did NOT have Soviet-style Communism in mind.
Conflating the USSR with "Marxism" is an immensely significant historical falsehood. The US & West pushed this falsehood because it helped them in the propaganda war. The Stalinist regime pushed it because it gave them an unearned claim to the rightful prestige of socialism. (Noam Chomsky describes this in a short essay titled, "How the Cold War Worked.")
After Lenin was incapacitated by strokes, a struggle to succeed him emerged between Stalin & Trotsky. Trotsky & his supporters (the "Left Opposition") were well aware that Stalin was moving towards the destruction of everything the Bolshevik Revolution had been based on (essentially, workers' control of government). Nonetheless, Stalin was more skilled than Trotsky at tactical bureaucratic infighting. When he won the power struggle, he proceeded to write Trotsky & all mention of his critique out of the official version of Soviet history. // The ruling entity that then became known as "Communism" is more properly referred to as "Stalinism." Its only connection to Marxism is through what amounts to this historical accident. (This is similar to the USA, that has a lovely founding document about Enlightenment values, "democracy" & the "rights of man," but in actuality has only the faintest connection to those appealing ideas.)
Both Orwell's '1984' and 'Animal Farm' are often regarded (and presented) as attacks on "Communism." But Orwell himself was keenly aware of the difference between Stalinism and genuine socialism. In his mind (and he said this explicitly), he was attacking Stalinism, while continuing to support the idea of socialism. It's very worth noting that this disclaimer of his went largely unmentioned in the West, since the novels WITHOUT the disclaimer were more useful for Western propaganda.
Both of Orwell's books show that there are pluses and minus in both socialism and capitalism. If Orwell were alive today, he would not support one system over the other. In both books, Orwell made it crystal clear that you cannot change the system from top to bottom but instead of bottom to top with some supervision on all levels. In the novel "Animal Farm", the animals were entertained with the idea of a violent overthrow only to be left with an equally tyrannical set of pigs. This had nothing to do with socialism or capitalism although the way the pigs conducted business on the farm less openly compared to the previous tyrant made matters worse. There was no change in the overall structure of the system, just changing the leader. Likewise, in "1984", Winston made a foolish mistake of thinking that taking down one leader at the top would change the system. Again, it had nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. Obviously, it failed. Orwell didn't prefer one system over the other but made it clear that in any system, there are winners, losers, and abusers who will do their darndest to dominate. I've seen your reference to elephants and trampling in anger but I do not believe that unfettered violence is the answer because like unfettered capitalism, a crook can cash in and rig the system to their own liking. Take a look at the rising gun ownership in today's society. We have an armed populace and yet the tyrants at the top have won and still are winning because they're able to pull everything from under our noses while the gun-toters believe that a French Revolution is coming when it ain't. I have come across countless non-violent ideas and solutions that are better than relying on violent revolutions to solve the mess. Large organizations and movements start with small ideas followed by unity and expansion. George Orwell wouldn't deny that. Both sides can argue which system Orwell would have chosen, capitalism or socialism, but so far the fact remains that he's referring to any system. The fact is any system can be fudged over time and no violent revolution will fix that. A long term problem requires a long term solution even if it looks "wimpy" at first glance. Quick fixes such as violent overthrowing simply cover up the problem and don't attempt to undo the long term damage but in fact worsen it.
Naomi Klein makes a clear distinction between regulated capitalism and unfettered capitalism in her book "Shock Doctrine". The latter type of capitalism she calls disaster capitalism and rightfully so. I like socialism for the most part because I believe in a basic safety net for myself and others. At some point, however, I could see where regulated capitalism would give me a little more leeway but I certainly do not support unfettered capitalism.
Absolutely! Its the unregulated Capitalism started really unleashed by Clinton and used by Cheney/Bush that has caused this disaster.
A regulated capitalist economy with real government oversight has always produced enough for its citizens and even enough for social dsafety nets for the less fortunate. Both sides are out of whack at the moment.
C'mon, Henry8, I know that you know that Reagan is the logical starting point for modern unleashed capitalism. His 'government is the problem' talk, his S&L deregulation debacle and more.
Henry8, if you read the novel "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, the donkey character would agree with you and me on that as well. No matter who was in charge and what system was out there, the donkey always reckoned that no system would be fool proof. I think we all could learn from the donkey and stand up for better no matter which system or combination of we face.
I did. Great comment. But these folks keep whacking us donkey's with that 2X4! We need to take it away from them.
2X4 ? And exactly which folks are you referring to that are whacking us?
PS: Sorry if my mind is clouded again. I was just getting upset over at that gun control article at the NRA spokespeople like steel_gray for vomiting his NRA spew on others who could see through this madness. See my posts on that article.
Q
That is exactly what I do NOT mean. As I attempted to imply, the Soviet system of communism was a subterfuge that the rulers of the Soviet Union used as an excuse to promote their murderous and corrupt agenda. True Marxism has never been attempted anywhere in the world and that is probably because the ruling classes would not wish to see their wealth and power distributed among the masses.
“True Marxism has never been attempted anywhere in the world and that is probably because the ruling classes would not wish to see their wealth and power distributed among the masses.” Erroll, the masses didn’t exactly ask the ruling classes if it’s OK with them if they try any form of communism - perfect or not. I’d say the ruling classes were lucky if they didn’t get executed.
The main reason why communism failed everywhere it has been attempted, is greed and selfishness - people simply wouldn’t work for the common good. You might also say that this is the reason why the “perfect form of Marxism” has never been tried. There is nothing wrong with the underlying principles of communism, just like there is nothing wrong with the underlying principle of Christianity - “love thy neighbor like yourself”.But unless you find a way to persuade people to be their brother’s keeper of their own accord, you’ll fail miserably in making the world a better place, no matter how good the system sounds in theory.
Bea writes, "The main reason why communism failed everywhere it has been attempted, is greed and selfishness - people simply wouldn’t work for the common good..."
- This is an ignorant reactionary opinion, quite typical of brainwashed Americans.
First of all, there have been only a very few efforts made at getting even a nominally socialist society off the ground. The main reason these failed is that the great capitalist powers, led by the US, did everything possible to make them fail. These measures included CIA coups, assassinations, sabotage, trade embargoes, invasions, & exclusion from world markets.
The failures had nothing to do with people "simply not working for the common good," as Bea so ignorantly puts it. In places like Cuba, the USSR, & Chile in the 1970's, ordinary citizens worked very hard, often with impressive accomplishments. Despite all the grotesque shortcomings of the USSR, for example, the country still went from being an utterly backwards semi-feudal society under the tsars (by the way, under tsarism, Russia was capitalist), to being a world power, with formidable achievements in space, science, health care & literacy, in only 30+ years.
Bea claims the failure of these states was "greed and selfishness - people simply wouldn’t work for the common good." This is a form of blaming the victim, except in this case, the "victim" is the whole population of working people. To say that socialism can't work because people are greedy & selfish is very similar to saying that democracy can't work because people are unfit to govern themselves, so what they really need is an all-powerful king to make decisions for them & put the fear of God into them.
“This is an ignorant reactionary opinion, which however is entirely typical of brainwashed Americans.” Wow. You are not only rude and presumptuous, Rich M, but also, not particularly well informed. First of all, as a person, who lived in Eastern Europe through the final stages of communism there, I can tell you that you are mistaken in your opinion that the fall of communism was caused by the activities of the US. The US might have contributed somewhat, mainly in the form of anti-communist propaganda, but the main reason why communism fell in Eastern Europe and Russia was that it didn’t have the support of local populations.
There were several reasons why people rejected communism. Some had to do with the lack of political, economic and to some extent, personal freedom. Another reason was relative poverty, especially when contrasted with the apparent prosperity of the Western countries.
I had to come to the US to find out that the aforementioned apparent prosperity is indeed only apparent - enjoyed by some, though unfortunately not by the majority of the population. Furthermore the conditions that some people live in are far from being enviable. What we saw from there were nice houses, cars, schools, clothes, fully equipped hospitals - that was of course on TV in American movies, like “Dynasty”. What we didn’t see was poverty, drugs, lack of healthcare, racism, inequality, the fact that the nice houses and cars really belonged to the banks, and not the people who were the, again, “apparent” owners, etc.
Stupidity is not exclusive to America. People in the former communist countries fought for freedom and prosperity. . . I’ll take it back. Actually, they mainly fought AGAINST communism. They didn’t know exactly what they were fighting FOR. What they got is unfettered capitalism. The workers lost, or to be accurate, gave up all their rights. The developing ruling classes in those countries - a new concept for the younger generations who grew up after the war - are now free to fire anybody for any reason, there is no real minimum wage, there is huge (and under-reported) unemployment, massive emigration, and all kinds of abuse. Sounds like America now, (except for the emigration, that is) doesn’t it? And they do have McDonald’s now, too.
RichM: “First of all, there have been only a very few efforts made at getting even a nominally socialist society off the ground.” Which is it that we are talking about here - communism or socialism? For your information, Rich, these are two different systems.
“To say that socialism can't work because people are greedy & selfish is very similar to saying that democracy can't work because people are unfit to govern themselves, so what they really need is an all-powerful king to make decisions for them & put the fear of God into them.”
Again, I didn’t mention “socialism” in my post, and I happen to think that some kind of market socialism, maybe involving workers' co-ops, would be far better than any form of capitalism or communism. And as for the all powerful king - if he had both the brains and a heart, I’d take him over the current so-called democracy in the US, where half the people don’t bother to vote, and 80% of the ones that do are semi-morons voting against their own interests.
Here is a question for you Rich, since you seem to know everything about everything. You mention that ordinary citizens in communist countries worked very hard, often with “impressive accomplishments”. In that case, why didn’t these countries surpass the capitalist countries economically? I suppose that one reason for that is that, unlike the capitalist countries, they didn’t steal from others. But it couldn’t be the only reason, could it?
And the greed issue. I remember constantly hearing a saying that roughly translated would be “no matter if you work on the job or just rest, you’ll still bring the money home”. Even if you were a bad worker, your supervisor wouldn’t fire you, because he didn’t care himself - your lack of productivity didn’t affect you or him financially, and anyway you were both in the same boat. In other words, yes, they didn’t want to work for the common good, they’d prefer a financial enticement. Not because they were bad people, but it's human nature, Rich. Human nature.
I usually enjoy reading your comments Rich. Too bad that sometimes you feel the need to be arrogant, insulting, and condescending.
Thank you.
Bea
I apologize. I misjudged you. Sorry -- this can easily happen on Internet chat boards. One has to be somewhat thick-skinned to participate.
However, the post I attacked (your 2:40 pm post, where you wrote "The main reason why communism failed everywhere it has been attempted, is greed and selfishness - people simply wouldn’t work for the common good") -- this had the misfortune of being just what ignorant Americans typically say, when taking the position that there's really no alternative to capitalism.
In your 1:04 am follow-up, you set forth various criticisms of Eastern European Communism. I agree with all these criticisms. I don't defend Stalinism in any way. // A problem in terminology contributed to my misunderstanding you. Namely, the word "communism" changed meanings after the Russian Revolution. Before then, it largely referred to the ideas of Marx (& was associated with European mini-revolutions in 1848, & the Paris Commune in 1871). After the Bolsheviks took power, it largely referred to the USSR (& to its postwar satellites). The word thus became synonomous with Stalinism, which isn't remotely the same as what Marx & Engels had envisioned. // Anyway, when you used the word "communism," it was reasonable for me to assume you were speaking broadly about all socialist alternatives to capitalism, as opposed to specifically the Eastern European Stalinist regimes. (I was wrong in assuming that, but it was a reasonable supposition.)
In your first 2 paragraphs above, you spoke of why Eastern Europeans rejected Stalinism when it was in its final death throes. I did ***not*** say that the US was the main driving force during the final death throes. What I said was that the great capitalist powers always did their best to ensure that Communism would fail. They did this right from the very start, by sending in "Expeditionary Forces" in 1919, & supporting the White side of the Russian Civil War. They also did this by more or less dragging their feet in aiding the Russians, after Hitler attacked in 1941. By using their economic & diplomatic leverage to the maximum, the West always did its utmost to cripple the Soviet experiment. They also forced the USSR into an arms race it couldn't afford. The US deliberately lured the Soviets into a disaster in Afghanistan in 1979. // Another important early reason that the USSR became such a mess is that potential revolutions failed in Germany in 1919 & 1923. This left the Soviets isolated. Things could have been very different, had those revolutions succeeded.
Anyway, many factors came together to ensure that the USSR would end badly, & the US played a leading role in many of them. By the time of the final collapse in 1991, it was no longer necessary for the US & its allies to push the regime to its final death, because the die was already cast. However, the popular lack of support for the regimes by that time was a ***consequence*** of what Stalinism had by then become. That, in turn, was shaped in large measure by what the West had been doing for the entire 74 or so years. It also had much to do with the Stalinist leadership. It didn't START with people "refusing to work for the common good." // By the 1970's or 80's, people might have refused to work, but this was only after they'd gotten thoroughly disgusted. For several decades, during basic industrialization & electrification, the Russians worked very hard. And of course, they fought with unbelievable courage in WWII. // Soviet growth was pretty impressive, until the mid 1960's or so.
You also wrote, "In that case [ie, if people worked hard under the Stalinist regimes], why didn’t these countries surpass the capitalist countries economically? I suppose that one reason for that is that, unlike the capitalist countries, they didn’t steal from others. But it couldn’t be the only reason, could it?"
- First of all, they started from a much more primitive state of development. Second, as you point out, they never benefitted from plundering from other countries the same way that the US & UK always did. Third, the US & its allies isolated those countries, forcing them to be autarkic (self-sufficent, but in a negative sense). In other words, cut off from trading freely with the rest of the world market, they had to try to do everything themselves. Their ability to do this was limited, & the stage of development called "globalization" completely overwhelmed this limited ability. No one country can compete economically with what in a sense is the whole rest of the world put together.