The Capitalism Debate!!!! - Page 4

I am not saying that you do not have the right to choose nazism of capitalism. This is a democracy after all.

I am saying, that if you do pick something else, don't expect to be democratic much longer.

The problem is that capitalism is as great a threat to democracy as any other form of government.

Wrong, capitalism allows the possibility of democracy, unlike other economic models.

quote:

---

capitalism allows the possibility of democracy

---

The way I see it, it's the other way around. Democracy allows for capitalism.

If you really are 17, then you haven't really faced the capitalist world. You only know what you learn in school.

When you have to work to pay bills because the tv tells your family what they should have and you cannot offord. Credit cards are maxed out, you and your wife are working, maybe you're doing a second job while your children compain. Truely, they would not complain so much if they had parents around who we'ren't always working. Behold - The capitalist free world of democracy. You can have it.

I think there is a better way. Clay Turtles ancestors new it.

"The way I see it, it's the other way around. Democracy allows for capitalism."
Nonesense, there a million countries who were capitalist before being democratic. You can idealistic about it and lie to yourself by saying "democracy will solve everything". However that is a lie. World War 2 shows that lie bare, Japan, Italy, Germany. 3 countries, 3 democracies that fell into fascism and imperialism. There have also been many countries in Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Rhodesia), who were democratic and have failed.

That idealistic lie allowed world war 2.

Secondly, countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Taiwan and South Korea were capitalist long before being democratic. I think your statement is completely ignorant of today's world and of history. It is guided by an idealistist blind and dangerous faith in democracy, because it makes the world so much simpler doesn't it?

" Clay Turtles ancestors new it."
We can no longer live like that (I assume you are referring to wild men), there are too many of us.

"When you have to work to pay bills because the tv tells your family what they should have and you cannot offord."
Capitalism assumes a certain maturity. Frankly, I don't approve of commercials in general, they are too manipulative. But that's no excuse, no one is forcing you to buy anything.

First I would like to thank you both for coming to my point.

quote:

---

"The way I see it, it's the other way around. Democracy allows for capitalism."

---

Sorry OkCity but I tend to agree with teen in these matters.

quote:

---

Nonesense, there a million countries who were capitalist before being democratic.

---

Historically, the Bill of Rights & Constitutional Agreements were formed by the well educated (capitalist) wealthy landowners & merchants for themselves. Not having the material wealth to hire an army made it neccessary to extend those liberties in general to foster the desire to fight for freedom.
(Which is not an implication that some of those who drew the framework of independence were not accepting of the civil liberties movement in Europe)
From the beginnings of this nation the need for cooperative exchange of services (barter) of the middle class (merchant-landowners) was formed.
It is no wonder that in our history has been dominated by 2 parties; those desiring a capitalist republic & those of democratic nation. (not impling the present day parties as such by their names)

quote:

---

We can no longer live like that (I assume you are referring to wild men), there are too many of us.

---

I see you still maintain the image of the savage indian. You might be surprised to look at the Native American history pior to the white man's coming to these lands. We were not all hunter / gathers many tribes existed as agricultural centers,
especially the earlier tribes to form in the southwest & eastern states. Controled burns to allow fresh growth of forest was practiced long before the forest service came to use such techniques. The early tribes of Florida would flood area & practiced a crude form of fish farming.

I do not think indians are in any way better then us. They harm their environment like we do (they wiped out every large mammal on the American continent). The only difference is that they don't have the technological ability to do more damage.

I do think that native american society is probably better suited to human need. Humans aren't made for living in huge cities, seeing strangers everyday, not exercising, having too much food etc... I think that biologically, native american society probably more suited to us.

However, today there are far too many of us, and even pragmatically, we cannot live like indians. If there is a characteristic to nomadic societies (indians, tungus, aboriginal australian, it doesnt matter), it is that they are invariably conquered and decimated by other peoples.

So, although perhaps ideally we should live hybrid lives. Half-scientific/capitalist, which allows us medicine, understanding and security and half-wild because it corresponds to our biological needs. But I don't think it is at all possible on a practical level.

quote:

---

They harm their environment like we do (they wiped out every large mammal on the American continent). The only difference is that they don't have the technological ability to do more damage.

---

Most indignous tribes lived in a harmonious relation to their environment. Depleting a resource by killing off of large mammal (any animal) would be inherently wrong to them. It was the white man who practice (near) genosides other beings. The nature's way is to use all of a kill to maxiumize usage & to conserve. While buffalo herds were sometimes to a cliff edge to kill in mass, this is more of a reserved ploy use in special circustance or need.

quote:

---

You can idealistic about it and lie to yourself by saying "democracy will solve everything".

---

Your wrong, I would'nt say that. For fear of being called a liberal (there have been communist communities that have been very successful) minus the capitalism. A society where everyone shares. Inorder for Capitalism to operate, there must be a certain amount of freedom. Call it democracy, call it what ever you want.

quote:

---

Clay Turtles ancestors new it."
We can no longer live like that (I assume you are referring to wild men), there are too many of us.

---

Once again, I believe you are correct. I've thought this over for a long time and came to the same conclusion. A sad truth, but our only salvation is scientific technological advancements.

But capitalism won't get us there, if anything, capitalism is more the problem then the solution.

"Most indignous tribes lived in a harmonious relation to their environment. Depleting a resource by killing off of large mammal (any animal) would be inherently wrong to them."
I'm not saying they *wanted* to kill off large mammals. But like all men on earth (except Africans, due to the fact large mammals evolved along side them), they killed and exterminated large animals (I'm actually thinking of giant 10 foot birds as well). Humans are fundamentally stupid, they killed off the animals, they may well have regretted later, more likely they never realised what they had done (this stuff takes time, generations).

" Call it democracy, call it what ever you "
The amount of freedom in capitalist societies varies enormously. Democracy is something very specific, though separate from capitalism, it cannot live long without it.

" A sad truth, but our only salvation is scientific technological advancements. But capitalism won't get us there, if anything, capitalism is more the problem then the solution."
If science is our salvation; know that science has advanced far far quicker under free market societies : namely Western Europe, North America and Japan. So I'm not sure (and doubt) that there is better alternative.

Or at the very least, there is no alternative that we know about.

quote:

---

(I'm actually thinking of giant 10 foot birds as well).

---

The closest bird with a 10 ft.wing span would be the Condor of South America? Although some have considered stories of large eagles (thunderbirds) taking people off in central & north american indians as being accounts of the condor. I don't believe that they are considered as indigenious to north america, though they could range great distances or may have been of greater population which extended into the Rockies (mtn).
As most native people tend to use feathers, fur, fang or claws in ceremonies & rituals; these objects are considered sacred gifts. It wasn't until the white way of capitalism (money) did natives desiring the wealth (greed) start to taking animals in such numbers.
Generallly these type people are considered to have abandoned their heritage, trying to become white (an apple> red skinned outwardly but {spiritually} inwardly their flesh is white.)

No I'm talking of 10foot tall bird. Lived in madagascar I think (don't quote me on this), and was wiped out by the natives.

Truth is, all men kill, the only difference is their ability to kill.

quote:

---

Or at the very least, there is no alternative that we know about.

---

Right - so we've gone around circle. A democratic government by the people for the people is best so far (vice) a government by the capitalist for the capitalist we are becoming. (not good).

Only God knows how you manage to exrtact that from my statements.

Only GOd knows why? I don't see it as that far out of context.
How is this country's government has been spending billions, trillions, etc during the period of time since WWII, developing technology to what supply the energy needs of future generations? By providing grants for reseach with military applications (primary) using humanitary (secondary) as their guise for such expenditures: nuclear power plants processing producing enrich uranium & plutonium; satillite systems for communication & orbital space stations for scientific reseach (starwar)? How much was granted to alternative energy resourse developement? (search keyword Timothy Leary).
Yes scientific knowledge has grown at a phemnominal rate but in what direction. Where is this leading us, to an independent people or to a dependecy upon capitalism? Inflated earnings doesn't pay off in the end, or will theypull a rabbit out of their hat as supply dwindle to null to grant the people alternative sources?