Globalisation

[brian mitchell]

Capitalism is closer to the philosophical idea of "survival of the
fittest",
it bears a closer resemblance to reality than does socialism.
Unfortunately, it also needs to acquire some of the altruisms that nature
has come up with, and soon. Otherwise it will end up breeding itself right
out of existence.

I'm glad you properly categorised "survival of the fittest" as a
philosophical idea. It may be no accident that it gained currency when
European colonialism was at its most rapacious and provided a handy
justification.

"Reality" is just whatever way we define it, which is useful. If you
look at supposedly less civilised societies, the 'primitives', you find
they have a far greater sense of cooperation and mutual benefit in the
way they hunt, herd or farm than modern societies do (or they did before
we rolled over them). To say capitalism resembles reality is a virtual
tautology.

Apart from that, I agree with you!

brian mitchell

 

[Day Brown]

The problem with opportunity, is that many of the poor, besides whatever
their genetic deficits mite be, have not had optimal mental development
from exposure to pathogens, mal-nutrition, & environmental contamination.

For them, opportunity wont work any better than it does in the mental
institutions. At best, they need better case management to reduce their
birthrate so that they can provide better conditions for the kids they
do have.

I dont see any democratic process producing that solution, so I expect
we will solve these problems the old fashioned way, with Darwin wiping
out the less fit with violence, starvation, and pathogens.

If that happens, then the delivery of supplies even in the advanced
cultures is likely to be disrupted, and refugees may be put on the move
just as we saw with Katrina, but coming from several more places all at
the same time.

 

[JoeSP]

I take it you mean the *solutions* to the problems are to come from
taking away?

Theoretically, in the socialists' textbooks.

Earning has a nice moral ring to it, but I defy you to say why the
output of one person, say a lawyer who makes $100/hr, is intrinsically
worth more to society as a whole than the output of another, say a
teacher who gets $25/hr. And wouldn't you say that a drug dealer has
"earned" his money, trading in a highly valued commodity according to
strict market ethics?

Yes I know the word has connotations that seem to raise hackles, but the
simple fact remains...

Everything comes from earning. No matter if something is given, stolen,
bought for a song or just granted for free...

It had to have originally come from someone who earned it. Socialists
ignore such a fact at their peril.

 

[Day Brown]

I try to take a pragmatic approach. Primitive tribes were more
egalitarian because they had other priorities than the cash value of
production. They supported lazy, crazy, stupid, and/or dishonest people
because they mite carry resistance to tropical diseases. Darwin says,
"survival of the fittest" and quite often being smart and industrious
didnt matter. The hominids evolved in small gene pools, and wanted as
much genetic diversity as they could get.

That had a lot to do with why sailors had such a good time when they
arrived at remote islands in the South Seas.

I note as well, that all the rhetoric about competition comes from
transnat mass media and government, which are both *organized* to get as
much from individuals as possible.

I am part of a group now that is taking a page from the transnats by
vertically integrating. The nuclear family home is just too small a
social entity to compete effectively with these other organizations. It
used to be that the extended family was sufficient to support members at
the mercy of transnationals and/or government, but now, after decades of
birth control, the three generation clan is only a dozen people.

There are reports that the most efficient form of operation is the small
business, which by definition is less than 50. I find this interesting
because, if you add up the number of productive adults in communities as
far back in our hominid history as we can go, you get a similar number.

Its not hard to see that if 50 productive adults invested in wind power
for a village the unit cost would be way below what each would have to
pay for their own home. "Life In A Medieval Village" was taken from the
court records of an obscure English midlands hamlet that had a group of
about this size... that could afford to pasture a team of oxen on the
village green to plow all their gardens at once.

It was a pragmatic mix of social safety net and entrepreneurship that
varied over time depending on weather, taxes, and other outside forces
that empowered the *individuals* far more than either the standard
capitalist or socialist models we see debated on line.

So- likewise, we have partners in network administration of state and
county political systems to keep us abreast of pending legislation and
regulation, while at the same time we have relationships with farmers
and an urban produce vendor. Nobody is going to get rich, but we all see
mutual economic benefit in being able to adapt our business to whatever
evolves- the contacts to identify employment opportunities for those we
see as worthy partners now, but able to transfer that energy to a more
locally organized operation if fuel prices or whatever interfere with
the profits that now flow from the global market.

 

[JoeSP]

I try to take a pragmatic approach. Primitive tribes were more egalitarian
because they had other priorities than the cash value of production. They
supported lazy, crazy, stupid, and/or dishonest people because they mite
carry resistance to tropical diseases. Darwin says, "survival of the
fittest" and quite often being smart and industrious didnt matter. The
hominids evolved in small gene pools, and wanted as much genetic diversity
as they could get.

I don't think things were so egalitarian as you imagine. Hominids and
primates in general are quite treacherous within their own groups, even
going back to the chimps.

Civilization and egalitarianism with all its laws, human rights and ethics
are a human invention. Like all inventions, some look very good on paper,
but fail miserably in practice. Socialism is obviously one of those.

 

[Day Brown]

I don't think things were so egalitarian as you imagine. Hominids and
primates in general are quite treacherous within their own groups, even
going back to the chimps.

Civilization and egalitarianism with all its laws, human rights and ethics
are a human invention. Like all inventions, some look very good on paper,
but fail miserably in practice. Socialism is obviously one of those.

Who gets to define the terms? I said they were *more* egalitarian. not
that they were perfect. There are anthro reports of shamen who were real
tyrants that got people killed. But small tribes could ill afford to
loose very many because of the priority of genetic diversity.

More to the point is survival in the face of globalization. I dont put a
label on how socialist or capitalist a community is. The nice thing
about the prehistoric city state system was that talented people could
vote with their feet, and the fact that they did so kept governments
small & efficient no matter what kind of label you want to put on them.

If I examine the demands of the global market, I can see that women who
are more careful in sperm donation will have far better results, and
they will also be selective on which women they permit to bear kids, or
even have some accept egg donation from the more talented mtDNA lines.
It wont matter whether you have a capitalist system or not if most of
the population is neurotic, drunks, addicts, liars, thieves, or suffers
from autism, ADD, ADHD, and the females grow up to be bipolar bitches.

A community run by women will have the moral authority to make sure that
no pregnant woman abuses alcohol so as to produce yet another welfare
case suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome. I usta think the hillbillies
were all inbred, but on looking at the photos of FAS kids, I see that
the look is because the mothers were drunks. A relatively isolated rural
community wont be exposing their kids to the childhood pathogens that
have been identified as triggers for autism. But- what with satellite
communications, I see the health workers and medical transcriptionists
will be able to do business online, and not be bringing home new bugs
from school or work, and thereby be far more productive themselves, as
well as see their kids do far better with school work.

They are not interested in defining whether the community is socialist
or capitalist, and are operating within both systems for the benefit of
themselves and their kids. Whatever works. Nothing is dogma; they are
all rational and adaptable. Unlike Liberals, they've understood the data
from the human genome, and wont be pissing in the wind trying to help
people who are lost causes. Unlike Conservatives, they dont operate on
"faith" with convictions, but bring psychological analysis to the table
to unravel motivations and cut way down on the drama and exploitation.

What you, and your community do is your problem, not ours.