Global Economic Downturn: War, or Sustainability?

[Brainaddict]

The disposability thing is an interesting point though. Very many consumer products have a far shorter life-time than strictly necessary, not only due to technical advances, but because of the producers' need to re-create demand.

Absolutely. This is something that can be dealt with without arresting people, strapping them to a chair, forcibly injecting them, then monitoring them for the rest of their life to ensure they don't cut out the implant.

Whether it can be dealt with within capitalism is an interesting question.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Go on then, tell me more.

No, sorry. Your level of argument ('he's a nazi lol') bores me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm now about to have a read, sounds interesting (the gunthergrad thread). Also I'm not assuming those to be the only options, what I was attempting to say was that I think all human models of government will ultimatly for the forseeable future be flawed, because they were created by and require the interaction of humans.

Should that be a counsel of despair, though? Of course a perfect system is impossible, but improvements can be made. History shows us this.

 

[butchersapron]

No, sorry. Your level of argument ('he's a nazi lol') bores me.

OK. Thanks for trying.

 

[Wolveryeti]

You are of course entitled to be passionately wrong, but I wish you'd actually read the arguments people are putting forward and try to think about the other factors in the causal chain that leads to environmental destruction.

I've read them. I just disagree with them and think they're fascile. People telling us how we should be are two a penny. Give me a roadmap for how this sea change in social relations is meant to appear and then maybe I'll be more impressed by them.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I've read them. I just disagree with them and think they're fascile. People telling us how we should be are two a penny. Give me a roadmap for how this sea change in social relations is meant to appear and then maybe I'll be more impressed by them.

I'd argue that it has appeared in various emergency and revolutionary situations historically. The problem is how to stop a new boss class arising subsequently once the immediate emergency or revolutionary change is over and the closely related problem of how to prevent it from turning into more of the same in self-defence against existing boss-classes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've read them. I just disagree with them and think they're fascile. People telling us how we should be are two a penny. Give me a roadmap for how this sea change in social relations is meant to appear and then maybe I'll be more impressed by them.

You give us a road map. How will you punish those who refuse to be sterilized, for instance? How do you persuade people to agree to the policy in the first place. It's pie-in-the-sky authoritarian wishful thinking as it stands.

 

[Brainaddict]

I've read them. I just disagree with them and think they're fascile. People telling us how we should be are two a penny. Give me a roadmap for how this sea change in social relations is meant to appear and then maybe I'll be more impressed by them.

Show me the revolution or I'll sterilise you.

Nice.

 

[butchersapron]

He wants billions dead without changing social relations yet those who want no one dead but better resource allocation are loons with no road map. OK...

 

[TomPaine]

Should that be a counsel of despair, though? Of course a perfect system is impossible, but improvements can be made. History shows us this.

No I'm an Atheist and a lot happier then a lot of my more religous friends, and I adopt the same attitude towards government really . I suppose I just accept that human kind is not some sort of "image of god" and that we tend to resort to some pretty awful behaviour when handed the chance, so better to limit the chance we have to resort to some of our more beastial traits.

Yes history is a great teacher and I wish people would pay more attention to it to be honest, my ideal job would be a Dr of history. Progress for humankind seems to come slowly, I think taking that factor into account at least allows us to tailor the system to something more realistic, then grandiose ideas that are often shot down in flames. I'm certainly not pessamistic though about the idea of changing things that really matter.. as history teaches us changes do happen.

 

[Wolveryeti]

You're talking about capitalism stopping expanding at a certain point because it 'makes sense'? Capitalism doesn't give people what they need, you ninny, it tells them what they need, then provides it. As for people having an absolute limit to what they can consume, let us know when you find it.

If you really think you can even refer to capitalism and 'making sense' in the same sentence then you need to have a lie-down and a long hard think.

People don't consume things for the sake of it. They consume stuff because it makes them happy. It's a crazy argument to say that there is no limit to how happy consumption can make you, and I don't believe that you agree with it.

 

[TomPaine]

The problem is how to stop a new boss class arising subsequently once the immediate emergency or revolutionary change is over and the closely related problem of how to prevent it from turning into more of the same in self-defence against existing boss-classes.

As long as there are shit jobs that nobody wants to do, lazyness, greed, lack of resources, poverty and in the long run money itself (wishful thinking here) then I don't see that as a possibility. We can only hope to contain or neutralise these affects upon society through providing a system that negates the routes that allow them to grow.

 

[Wolveryeti]

You give us a road map. How will you punish those who refuse to be sterilized, for instance? How do you persuade people to agree to the policy in the first place. It's pie-in-the-sky authoritarian wishful thinking as it stands.

Fine them for having unauthorised kids or taking out their implant. You are partially right on the second point in that there is no political will for what I'm suggesting, but I think it's vastly more achievable than solving ecological and social problems by 'getting people to be nicer to each other' which is what the communist project boils down to.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh fuck, he was serious.. And they say economics and smoking crack fucks you up.

 

[Wolveryeti]

He wants billions dead without changing social relations yet those who want no one dead but better resource allocation are loons with no road map. OK...

Where am I talking about killing people? Or dead people? Are you drunk? Or are you really trying to argue that preventing pregnancy with contraception is the same as killing people?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

People don't consume things for the sake of it. They consume stuff because it makes them happy. It's a crazy argument to say that there is no limit to how happy consumption can make you, and I don't believe that you agree with it.

I don't think you have been reading other people's posts, you know. As I said before, this is where ADVERTISING comes in. I would recommend you read a short book by Edward Bernays called Propaganda as an introduction to its basic tenets.

 

[Wolveryeti]

I don't think you have been reading other people's posts, you know. As I said before, this is where ADVERTISING comes in. I would recommend you read a short book by Edward Bernays called Propaganda as an introduction to its basic tenets.

Doesn't alter my original point. There is a limit to how effective advertising is. Do you continue to buy stuff that's been advertised to you after you realise it's shit?

 

[butchersapron]

Where am I talking about killing people? Or dead people? Are you drunk? Or are you really trying to argue that preventing pregnancy with contraception is the same as killing people?

Oh sorry, you were too busy to explain earlier. Feel free to expand now. Now that i know you weren't parodying an authoritarian nutjob.

 

[butchersapron]

Doesn't alter my original point. There is a limit to how effective advertising is. Do you continue to buy stuff that's been advertised to you after you realise it's shit?

Don't be so simple - new products always appear and new products always entail a new chain of production, transport and sale. Each step of that process contains a whole host of other chains - compenent production, transportation etc.

Let's get out the 19th century. This is embarrassing outdated stuff.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Doesn't alter my original point. There is a limit to how effective advertising is. Do you continue to buy stuff that's been advertised to you after you realise it's shit?

No, you buy the next thing the advertisers have created the need for.

As I said, read Bernays. He's not a commie nutjob, rather the reverse. He is one of the founding fathers of modern marketing techniques.

As an example from Bernays' book, you are a piano manufacturer and wish to sell more pianos in a particular town. How do you do it? Why, you organise a piano competition, of course, attracting young piano players from around the country by offering a modest prize. This is how you create the need. Mummy and Daddy see the nice young men and women playing the piano and consider buying one for little Johnny, shameless social climbers that they are.

Create the need, then fill it. Then create another need and fill that. Ad infinitum.

 

[Wolveryeti]

So people will buy as much as they're told to buy. Limitlessly. Shopping is more addictive than crack. You heard it here first folks.

 

[butchersapron]

Jesus christ.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry, wolfie, I can only debate with you if you try to understand what I say.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Create the need, then fill it. Then create another need and fill that. Ad infinitum.

Why do people create the need ad infinitum? It is work. Not everyone is a workaholic. Only if you constantly have people entering the workforce do you need ways of creating jobs for them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why do people create the need ad infinitum? It is work. Not everyone is a workaholic. Only if you constantly have people entering the workforce do you need ways of creating jobs for them.

Because banks lend money at interest, and the only way that interest can be paid back is if the economy grows.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is, about half of the worlds 100 largest economies are essentially planned economies. There's nothing specially privileged about markets.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Because banks lend money at interest, and the only way that interest can be paid back is if the economy grows.

So what happens when the loan is paid back?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So what happens when the loan is paid back?

The banks have to find another investment opportunity ... which means that growth is required.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thing is, about half of the worlds 100 largest economies are essentially planned economies. There's nothing specially privileged about markets.

The perpetual growth model is about markets, though, whether they involve states selling on the world market or individuals at local level.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The perpetual growth model is about markets, though, whether they involve states selling on the world market or individuals at local level.

Yep. The reason I mention that half of the top 100 economies are corporations is that it indicates that market economies are not the only possibility. A planned economy can work perfectly well. The real question is how the planning gets done. Is it done to make sure the maximum number of people get what they need, or is it done to maximise profits?