ThomasG, wrote:

“Leefeller,

Are you on the cusp of an epiphany, or what?”

Epiphanies have been an ongoing problem for me ever since Reagan passed away and I broke my French Press, thanks reminding me, I need to take my pills.

Ozark Michael, for what is worth, I have been almost like ThomasG relentlessly repeting myself on this theme, integrity and accountability since impeachment was announced off the table by money bags Pelosi!

Glen Beck has fun on more than one occasion, of my pink robe and hood at the national KKK conventions, I seem shunned if I do and shunned if I do? So I no longer listen to Beck anymore, even though he used to be my favorite Idle after Limbaugh. (Yes the war on Language)

It should be understood and has been foretold in the unknown journals of ill repute, people should rearguard what Leefeller has to say, especially since his accident with the garage door and the bowling ball. 

freindlee

Leefeller: Integrity and accountability would seem a nice change for a start in this alleged Democracy.

This is a terrible idea. The reason it is terrible is because it is Beck’s theme which he promises to hammer in future. Leefeller must be watching Glenn Beck. Leefeller is ‘parroting’ Glenn Beck!

We all know what a bad player Beck is, and how much damage he wants to do. To combat Beck we need to nip this in the bud.

We all need to disregard what Leefeller just said…and in future we ought to disregard Leefeller himself!

Lets all send him the message. I will start:

Dear Leefeller,

/shun

from your friend,
  OzarkMichael

TAO Walker said: The CON is emphasized regularly in this Old Savages offerings here to invite our tame Sisters’ and Brothers’ precious attention to the fraudulent basis upon which some of our common ancestors were lured into the “civilization” CONtraption, and also to the false foundations of the ruthless apparatus presently keeping them CONfined to it.

The false foundationof the American “civilization” CONtraption is better known as the American CONstitution. If anyone finds this CONfining, don’t go into CONiptions. CONfide in your local immigration agent and just leave.

Leefeller, October 6 at 11:19 am,

Are you on the cusp of an epiphany, or what?

The liberal side of my bipolar disorder agrees ThomasG, of course the fine points of defining could be sticky, but seems a plan.

Leefeller, October 5 at 10:02 pm,

The system that WILL WORK is socialized capitalism.

A signature characteristic of the compromised and co-opted components of any natural immune system is their chronic inability to recognize and respond as needed to the co-opting agent itself as a ‘sponsor’ of disease….like AIDS, for instance.  Domesticated Humans, as components in the natural immune system of our Mother Earth, commonly exhibit this same handicap, attributable to essentially the same invasive process….and to the same ultimately catastrophic effect.

The CON is emphasized regularly in this Old Savages offerings here to invite our tame Sisters’ and Brothers’ precious attention to the fraudulent basis upon which some of our common ancestors were lured into the “civilization” CONtraption, and also to the false foundations of the ruthless apparatus presently keeping them CONfined to it.

Mystery solved.

HokaHey!

Is it possible capitalism with strict rules and regulations could be worthy of support by the people living under its sphere?  Greed seems to say no, manipulation by the bigger capitalists says no,  but mostly corporations having the same rights as people says no, which seems most insidious.  Anti capitalist do offer little in the way of a plan. 

If capitalism is not working for you, please tell us what would?

Are you saying “G"utless that you are in the 1%? 

If everyone else on this forum thinks they are part of the so-called (made
up) 99%, m’thinks they lie to themselves and to those who really are
oppressed.  If you are part of the oppressed, please share with us how you are. 
Are you going without?  Without what?  Get a grip.

You had a pride of lions millions strong in 1965. You forced us to fight a
pointless war, called us baby killers when we came home. After the war you
wanted nothing to do with us as tens of thousands of us died from agent
orange. We became the homeless, we rotted in your jails on trumped up
charges. Perhaps it is time for the timid, meek taxpayers to fight their own
battles. Grow some balls and take away their source of money, sure it will
hurt. I suspect it will not hurt nearly as much as your taxes have hurt others
through the years.

By “G"utless “W"itless Hitler, October 5 at 2:54 pm #

The difference between the one percenters and the 99 percenters is that the
one percenters have always been willing to kill the 99 percenters to hold onto
what they have, while the 99 percenters have never been willing to take similar
action no matter how justified it might be. 

Lambs will never be equal to lions.  The timid have no rights.  The meek shall
inherit a toilet so utterly befouled by the rich that it can no longer be cleaned.

The problem with President Obama is that he is against us. Don’t listen to the colorful clownish reich wing attacking him as a “socialist” not when he is bailing out and leaving alone all those too big to fail darlings of that same reich wing. He has acted in the big important gov’t busting ways as Reagan - Bush II without change of trajectory by any president since. Into the abyss of a deeper Depression with side of fascism. It took 29 years of incremental destruction of our form of gov’t to get to this precarious position. Anything can send us over into the abyss of a Greater Depression. Then they will come out of the closet to “help” us.

The difference between the one percenters and the 99 percenters is that the one percenters have always been willing to kill the 99 percenters to hold onto what they have, while the 99 percenters have never been willing to take similar action no matter how justified it might be. 

Lambs will never be equal to lions.  The timid have no rights.  The meek shall inherit a toilet so utterly befouled by the rich that it can no longer be cleaned.

Hope and change seemed only an illusion depending at which level one allowed themselves to be deceived. 

Rhetoric always the illusion, used to become elected, then the immovable object sets in, plutocratic political manipulation, lobbies seeking opportunism and a seemingly large amount of ignorance and graft all posturing for power. 

Integrity and accountability would seem a nice change for a start in this alleged Democracy. Political Manipulation calls the shots and people it’s will, all part of an illusion defined as reality.

michael:
’“If things go well, the knowledge and industrial power available to ordinary people will increase, eventually making them independent of elites.”

I agree. And I think a good government would help facilitate this transition.’

The government, which is basically owned and operated by these same elites, will almost certainly do what it can to inhibit or deflect such a transition.  One can observe that happening right now and at almost any other time.

The assumption of power (over their own lives) by ordinary people is not in the interests of those who now have power over them.

I am pretty sure capitalism will disappear.  This is my definition of capitalism, to wit, a political and economic arrangement in which an elite own and control the means of production as a way of life, and most people work for them as employees or contractors.  If things go well, the knowledge and industrial power available to ordinary people will increase, eventually making them independent of elites.  (This could be happening now, but as yet only a minority are aware of the possibilities.)  If things go badly, we will revert to feudalism or slavery, or go extinct.

However, capitalism is highly dynamic and may go through a number of surprising transformations on its way out the door.  The transition from subsistence to consumer capitalism which occurred in the early part of the 20th century was quite remarkable and for the most part not foreseen by either capitalism’s fans or its critics.

Shenonymous,

In this play we are all of us alternating between the roles of winner and loser. That is our curse, and
our seduction. There is no escape save to exit society, and few have the courage or the character to
achieve this.

All ‘isms’ have their pitfalls, but the rules of the game vary widely within each system. Once one
submits to the rules of capitalism, the criteria of the winner is strictly and arbitrarily defined, and your
place within the hierarchy will be clear and inescapable.

Marxism, socialism, or even tribalism seek to mitigate or eradicate this hierarchy, which sets citizen
against citizen within the group, and eventually corrupts the entire community. America is currently in
the thrall (A Love Story) of extreme (wild west, or vulture or parasitic, choose your term) capitalism,
which destroys community utterly, and without compunction.

If one were to custom design an ism whose purpose is to erode community, one could hardly do
better than America’s special brand of scorched earth capitalism. It demands that each member of the
group be subsumed in the profit maximizing apparatus. To do less is to fail the apparatus and
punishment will swiftly follow in the form of financial deprivation and/or status loss - a fate akin to
death according to the rules of capitalism.

Capitalism corrupts when each member of the community, believing themselves to be special (a
winner) betrays the group interest for personal gain. This betrayal is eventually so complete, that the
“winner” will physically separate himself from the “losers” by living in a gaited or exclusive area, in
which he/she can now commune with other winners and enjoy their congratulatory spoils.

The rules of steroid capitalism implicitly (explicitly in world of high finance) nullify morality as factor
in decision making. One is a “sucker” to take the welfare of the community into consideration. You can
be replaced at any time by someone more ambitious (ruthless), so one must get on with the dirty
business at hand.

It doesn’t have to be this way. As a society, we can choose something else. What we are witnessing,
with Michael Moore, and in threads like this, is the beginning of an evolution away from the
sociopathic commodification upon which American Exceptionalism is founded. When we have evolved
in sufficient numbers, change will follow. We will not live to see this. It took several hundred years for
society to rid itself of moral scourges like slavery, or feudalism. Yet if you are posting on websites like
this, you are already a catalyst for that eventual change. In evolutionary terms, you are the mutation
which will prove the stronger variant in the long term. Consider yourself America, beta version.

Yes, as an economic system capitalism will not disappear. To think it
will,to think that socialism can overtake the capitalist structure is pure
folly.  Ostrichism.  The need for private ownership will not go away and
especially as it is developing anew in former socialistic societies, which
is a signal that socialism in any extreme form did not work out.  It will
only manifest in a new idiom, given new definition by non-western
nations.  There is however the possibility that a merging of some
socialist ideals will affect the new capitalism.  Coming from the east, it
is bound to bring along with it some of its former socialistic,
communistic albeit, ideas. 

It is a matter of understanding the terms.  The crux of the matter is
that too many of us do not understand the terms because worse yet,
we do not know the list of terms.  It is new to our civilization that
people actually have the opportunity to affect their government. The
new media of communication has made that possible.  If it is a matter
of understanding the terms of corporatism then once that hurdle is
passed, then what?  It is action that makes changes even if it is to
assault the corporate world.  Some guidelines must be developed and
the principles given a face so that one isn’t aiming at a ghost.

The Real Fish has the most accurate summation of this I have ever heard.

Trouble is you need capital to begin.  Who can blame the poor, and trusting, who bought homes with nothing down with ARMs?  It was a crap shoot for them.  Maybe they weren’t so stupid: knowing they were about to get fired anyway, they threw the dice and hoped for the housing bubble to continue long enough to get that 250,000 individual tax exemption.  It didn’t last (because too many people were getting fired.  Duh.)  So they just copied the rich at a lower level.  They got some free rent at the dubious price of ruining their credit score.
  Everyone was gambling on the housing bubble—only the very rich—and connected—were too big to fail.  It appears the rest were too small to succeed.  I mean if the poor were allowed to become rich, or even flush with cash, there would be free beer and chicken down at the club—and Lord Flauntleroi would have wet his prissy pants.  We’d have replaced the chamber music with football games and Debbie Does Dallas Reruns on ad infinitum.
  Remember one saliant feature of the last ten years: when the Rip-ugli-cans say one thing, they mean the exact opposite. 
  “This loan,” they said.  “Will be just what you
are looking for.”
  It was always just about the points.  The original lender sold the loans to Wall Street in huge packages.  3-4 points.  It was resold, 4-8 points.  Sold again, billions in points.  Whoever held them last lost.  It was like musical chairs.
  Funny who won.  As Obummer’s friends and consultants now, they rule.
  Re Obama: any more info on the 52,000 tax evaders sheltered through UBS of Basel?  Obiwan played golf in Nantucket a couple weeks ago with the CEO and reduced the investigations to around 4,500…putting a serious leash on Holder.
  So Obama IS Holder’s boss after all—that’s not what he inferred when he said he was leaving it up to Holder re: torture prosecutions….
  Who is the King-maker?  It ain’t us, is it?

Mustabe: truer words never spoken

Anarcissie,

You make some good points, but I am trying to make some distinctions so we can think differently, and not continue a discussion that confuses an enterprise like Leefeller’s organic farm with AT&T.

Electricity is a force of nature, but not meaningless. We can use it to heal, grow food, commit suicide and destroy others. So is Capitalism.

Indeed, wherever investment and profit occurs I think that is Capitalism, and the fact that all your examples presumably share it is important. North Korea in fact could be described as a society “in which the means of production, which are mostly industrial and used collectively, are owned and controlled by private parties who specialize in this occupation and derive their power, wealth and social status from it.” The fact that the average North Korean has as little contol over the “private parties” involved as I have over the board of AT&T is what makes them “private” (in my book) regardless of what they call themselves or say. I feel this similarity is important.

Not making these distinctions and anaologies is what allows the PTB in this country to confuse the average citizen and make them think that if we have “socialism” he or she won’t be able to start a business. It also allows the average leftist to think that if we have socialism, we won’t have powerful forces controlling the less powerful. This is not true either, even in the Scandinavian countries that are often trotted out by democratic socialists as the counter. Sweden and Norway are like every other other country I know of, controlled by powerful families, though they have enviable tradition of social conscience that is rooted, I believe, in tribalism.

Capitalism, in the modern industrial sense, did exist before corporatism, but not for long, and as you admit, it is less flexible and thus, or so say I, less easy to control for the good of all.

One will, in my analysis, never get rid of Capitalism. Ask Russia. Ask China. Even ask Cuba. Nor would one want to. But if the discussion were to turn towards how to channel it to serve us rather than enslave us, that would be all to the good. That discussion is not likely to happen until we understand that many of our terms are confusing and confused, and thus tools in the hands of those who wish to enslave us.

When the left starts to preach against Capitalism, the corner grocer is not likely to join. When it preaches against faceless Corporatism, I think we have a better chance.

These days it is difficult to tell the difference between corporate flack and gov’t hack. So we need a separation of corporation and state too! (Not new.)

I think that government itself is the mechanism of
corporatism/capitalism since they precede government in
the long history of things and since government only
provides draconian rules for the use of capitalism to
maintain its control of society.

omniadeo: ’... Capitalism, as I see it, is a force of nature. I have $10 dollars and access to a garden space. I buy seeds, grow food and sell it for $30. $20 profit. That’s what I use to buy more seeds and whatever else I need. If I sell you poison food, you can punish ME. I will pay. ...’

If capitalism always existed, which this story implies (“force of nature”) then the word doesn’t mean much.  Forces of nature flow through everything.  North Korea, a tribal workers’ cooperative in Africa, a hippie commune could all be called “capitalist” as long as someone made a profit.

However, in discussions about politics and economics in the modern world, capitalism usually refers to a state of things in which the means of production, which are mostly industrial and used collectively, are owned and controlled by private parties who specialize in this occupation and derive their power, wealth and social status from it.  In order to function, they need a government, obviously controlled or at least strongly influenced by them, to protect their property and resolve their disputes, and a working class, who don’t have capital and therefore will have to provide labor.  Finally, they also need markets, consumers.  Corporations aren’t necessary—capitalists could be individuals or organize themselves as partnerships—but they are convenient, and they also permit capital to be moved around rapidly without the necessity of moving the capitalist or the workers, a feature which has greatly increased the ability of capitalists to industrialize and modernize undeveloped areas and populations.  This is the form which the politics and economy of modern liberal states have assumed, and it is being promulgated around the world through both persuasion and force of arms.  If you’re going to use the word capitalism with a different meaning, then I think you ought to deal with the difference between that meaning and this almost universal signification.

omniadeo,

Very good point, I was mixing up the two, Capitalism and corporatism.  Mustn’t write before having my coffee. My brain cells were not being in focus this morning, more so than usual.  I appreciate your comment, my previous comments need be heeded accordingly.

One key to keeping the best of capitalism (freedom to innovate, personal responsibility etc.) without the worst (class inequities) is to distinguish between capitalism and corporatism. They are not the same thing. The following is simplistic, but meaningful, INO.

Capitalism, as I see it, is a force of nature. I have $10 dollars and access to a garden space. I buy seeds, grow food and sell it for $30. $20 profit. That’s what I use to buy more seeds and whatever else I need. If I sell you poison food, you can punish ME. I will pay.

Corporatism is a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to limit the liability of the wealthy. It allows me to take my profit and pool it with the profits of others to force you off your land and make you work for me. Then, when I sell you poison food, there is no HUMAN PERSON to punish. You can sue the corporation, which is a legal person, with shapeshifting capabilities. But you can’t put it in jail and it can transfer all its assets elsewhere, so even if you win a jugment aginst it, it no longer has wealth to pay. The assets are hidden in another corporation.

The Corporation is a Super Person with whom you as an individual (like Leefeller) can never really compete.  Other corporations can, to some extent, but the whole structure encourages a race to be the biggest and meanest, with the lowest paid wage slaves, and the highest ability to buy influence with the military/police class.

It is Corporatism, not Capitalism that should be Moore’s focus.

If it is the players instead of the game, it would be most interesting to see how Adam Smith felt about rules?

Capitalism, as it seems played now seems, sort of like a chess game, the rules keep changing as the game is played, and only one side calls the rules.

All isms have their short comings, which is usually opportunism, for the upper hand seems the only goals, if only we did not have human natures greed to contend with.

The Real Fish has not only exposed capitalism from behind it’s dark curtain, he seems to have with rubber gloves preformed a most thorough cavity search.

For some reason, I accept and agree, but with some trepidation. Real Fish has exposed the ugly under belly.  My past and present business dealings have mostly seen and been recipient of Real Fish’s comments. Previously my experience as an small organic farmer, has been forced out by corporate farms, competition is not even on the table, so they have taken over the organc helm, which amusingly they fought in the beginning. 

According to my limited knowledge and my small degree of trepidation, Adam Smith propagated his vision, in which capitalism promotes the best product at the best price for the consumer.  My guess is the consumer is supposed to benefit?  What of the small producer? No more Leefeller organic high priced nicking the consumer with my better produce. Individual business have a huge disadvantage over corporations, something called mortality.

Manipulation and opportunism seem both rampart in politics and capital opportunities. Seems greed has no bounds, change will only happen if ignorance is educated and in much pain as to why, the real cause, which may never be exposed. 

Rules and regulations are needed, it seems monopoly is no longer a board game.

People concerned such as Moore and some of people here seem to be pissing into a corporate wind. It may become worse before it changes. Obama does not seem interested and surety Congress is not, one may be very sure as to why, I refer you to The Real Fish.

I always thought it was “Life’s a park bench…then you die.”  It isn’t
capitalism that transforms life into a tragi-comedy, it is the players
themselves, not cast but actually are the framework, the 2 x 4s of who
engage in private ownership of wealth called capital, and free market
enterprise.  In contrast, socialism is constructed into cooperatively or
state-owned means and distribution of wealth.  Both systems are
susceptible to corruption, dire corruption and has historically fallen into
the abyss of corruption. 

Capitalism exists in nearly all countries of the world and is the means
by which producing and distribution all goods for a profit are owned by
some in exchange for a wage to others for their labor.  The fact that
the laborers are exploited by the owners of production is actually a
different issue.  That is the one that needs addressed not the system. 
Systems are only corrupt to the degree those who run the system are
corrupt.  The remedy is to change a badly corruption-infected society
into one unadulterated by greed of those who run the systems.  How is
that done?  It doesn’t happen overnight with some intervening
superhero, nor with a magic wand, nor with any reminding of morals.
Though the latter wouldn’t hurt, it is wishful thinking to think they are
transformers of conscience.  It is also noticed religion produces the
corrupted in spite of extolling the virtues of remaining unsullied. We
have to remember that passion is what moves people to act, not
reason.  Reason provides only the basis for action.

While capitalism does provide more people the opportunity to acquire
more material goods, socialism provides materials goods only in a
different way.  So it isn’t by virtue of having material goods that a
problem arises.  In either system, extraordinary problems arise because
of categorical mistakes of what is important and this is taught from
infancy onward.  I would not say that “all” are losers.  I do not consider
myself a loser.  Do you, Anarcissie, consider yourself a loser? 
WriterOnTheStorm, which are you?  Loser or Winner?  Have you
not found meaning outside the narrow proscenium arch you have
fashioned?  Or are you groveling within it yourself?  Or are only we and
not you in the situation?  What exactly is your idea of a “true”
community?

I still in the room, but I’ve have the flu, probably swinish.  Funny, but
your argument seems right on the money and I thoroughly enjoyed its
cogency and clearly understood your points. You state,
TheRealFish, “... we must fight this war to limit the levels of their
greed…” That seems like the likely solution.  The problem is no one
seems to know how fight to limit their greed.  Isn’t that what all the
scrambling is about?  Since you have such excellent powers of
description, perhaps you also have a propaedeutic to fixing it.  Some
protocol or algorithm?  More simply put, some plan?

I’m sure my Australian tag team mate, Leefeller, will have something
more profound to ask.  We sort of got teamed up by Ouroborus, he
chases his own tail.  It’s all right, I’ve been a fan of Leefeller’s for a
couple of years.  It is an honor.

Okay, okay—I realize I’m just a late reader and commenter, most of you have moved on to the next watering hole, and I’m likely speaking in an empty room.

However.

I’ve scanned through all the comments here (at this point), pausing to completely read many, and I see there’s a single thread not being pulled at, one that Moore does, but one that I think even Moore misses the impact of that logic thread, maybe because it is so simple:

The oft-stated basis to capitalistic ways is pretty simple:

1. It is a method of spending resources, with the goal of experiencing a return of resources in greater quantity.

2. The oft-quoted theory that underpins this method as an “ism”: Minimize output of resources, maximise income of resources.

3. Struggle to always maintain this ratio in the face of those competitors dealing in outputting the same end product earning that income of resources.

4. Whenever and wherever possible, do whatever you can to limit the number of your competitors. Beat them at the resource inflow enough, they go away. Make “rules” that bar them from competing in the first place, they go away. And on and on.

Voila! Any-market Capitalism.

If you, as a good little capitalist, can keep your outflow of resources as close to zero as possible, while keeping your income of resources as high as everybody else (or higher, if you can convince others your end product is just so much better for them to procure at that inflated price), you can beat your end-product competitors. This is the Darwinian game that enters into the practice of pure capitalism.

What IS the best way to limit your outflow of resources, giving you the greatest competitive edge? Simple: If you are forced to employ workers to create your end product, pay them as little as you can get away with.

Slavery is certainly pretty much at the top of the list of ways to limit expense outflow. Sadly (to good little capitalists), that particular method has been decided by the public at-large a bit too unpalatable.

The next best way, barring slavery, is indentured servitude. An old singer (Ernie Ford) sang, “I sold my soul to the company store,” lyrics aimed at the core of that servitude.

For some reason, I find myself thinking of factory farms and Wal-mart as models here. Dunno. Mysterious, yes?

So, yes. Pure capitalism IS Darwinian. It has no moral center, is soulless, just a system for hording resources in as few hands as possible, and beating down or eliminating competition. It is also party-less.

This isn’t left v. right, liberal v. conservative, Repug v. Dem. It is, as Moore successfully points out, Haves v. Have-nots. That is why there are both Republican and Democratic (esp. Blue Dogs) corporatists who fight against rules limiting resource hoarding greed from being created. Or why Reagan, Clinton and Bush the Lesser all stripped away those rules put in place at the end of the last Great Depression limiting that greedy hoarding (leading to the greatest growth of the middle class in the history of the US, and the longest period of stability against historic boom/bust economic cycles).

Yes. Laws, and teeth to enforce those laws, containing unlimited greed are the necessary palliative protecting the masses from this corporatist greed.

The corporatists know this truth. That’s why they fight so hard against it. Health care reform, energy reform, minimum wage/living wage, tax reform and on and on: These ARE the tools to greater access to finite resources for the masses over the greedy few.

We need the greedy few, for they frequently innovate technology—but we must fight this war to limit the levels of their greed, for they behave like viruses that eat away at their host until the host dies. We need them the way our intestines need e-coli to digest. But uncontrolled e-coli kills just as surely as un-regulated markets or other forms of greed will continue to kill our now world-wide economies.

OM, good one. SC farms has a passion for what he believes in and it does seem Hume is correct, passion drives reason. Sorry wrong thread.

Saw the movie tonight.  Loved it. It is motivating.

C-SPAN2 on Book TV
Sunday, October 4th
9pm (ET)
Approx. 58 min.
After Words: Chris Hedges, “Empire of Illusion,” Interviewed by Ron Suskind

——————————————
Monday, October 5th
3am (ET)
Approx. 58 min.
After Words: Chris Hedges, “Empire of Illusion,” Interviewed by Ron Suskind

About the Program

Former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges discusses his new book,
“Empire of Illusion,” which describes what he considers to be the economic,
political and moral collapse of American culture.  He is interviewed by Pulitizer
Prize-winning writer Ron Suskind.? 

i really should hold my tongue here…but i can’t resist.  stcfarms, u is one dr. strangelove hippie.  but, what the hell, do what u feel u gotta do…let a thousand flowers bloom

One can only hope but logic and wisdom are in short supply on earth. Up until
now the collapse of civilizations has been local, this one will be global. I will
try to make it through the Malthusian with enough wisdom, books, natural
crops et cetera so that humans have a better shot at making it in the future.
Like Diogenes I find it difficult to recruit like minded people.

Nature determines the winners and losers, civilization believes that the rule
does not apply to humans. This is, of course, ludicrous at our present scale of
development. The past is filled with examples of failed civilizations, their ruins
are everywhere. When the civilizations collapsed the weak died off and a few of
the strong escaped.

If man wants to break this cycle then it is imperative that those that possess
wisdom find a way to make it into the next cycle. It is unlikely that we will stop
the present cycle but we could make it the last time that we do it wrong.

If we could ever reach a Type I civilization it would be like that. NO wars very little if any crime. Power over our environment that we wouldn’t inadvertently destroy killing our selves in the process. But we are far from that and this century will be the crucible to see if we come out the other end with some kind of civilization or scattered neo-primitives. 

Having the capacity to create technology of such a civilization is useless if we don’t have the wisdom which will keep us at Type Zero. If we survive that is.

My english skills are not great.  A wise civilization would be in tune with their
environment and would not interfere with the natural laws. Growth would be
limited to the resources available so as not to threaten the species as a whole.
Civilization as we now know it is an unplanned mess. To control population we
send our best and brightest to kill each other so we can have more resources
for taxpayers (slaves) that pay for the wars. Killing the strongest to make life
easy for the weak is counter productive. No one wins but the powers that be.

By Amon Drool, October 4 at 2:57 am #

civilization allows the weak to live and breed which weakens the whole—that a
wise civilization would NOT allow the weak to live and breed.  i apologize if i
drew an incorrect inference.

My english skills are not great.  A wise civilization would be in tune with their
environment and would not interfere with the natural laws. Growth would be
limited to the resources available so as not to threaten the species as a whole.
Civilization as we now know it is an unplanned mess. To control population we
send our best and brightest to kill each other so we can have more resources
for taxpayers (slaves) that pay for the wars. Killing the strongest to make
life easy for the weak is counter productive. No one wins but the powers that
be.

By Amon Drool, October 4 at 2:57 am #

civilization allows the weak to live and breed which weakens the whole—that a
wise civilization would NOT allow the weak to live and breed.  i apologize if i
drew an incorrect inference.

There are several bones of contention in this talk of “civilization” and who are the “weak” among us.

For me if humanism isn’t part of a civilization it becomes a bone grinding machine spitting our human lives in order to service a ruling class and their guardians. Humanism is about humans. Treat each other equally, to take care of each other even if we are strangers and to do well by each to all others. That includes taking care of the earth, our life support system. Not just trash it without a care.

As for who is weak in our species that is too in the eye of the beholder. If you trust psychopaths and their adherents it is those who aren’t aggressive and dog-eat-dog to rise to the pinnacle of any society. Any who do not or are injured or are without all the aspects of a normal healthy person plus the attributes aforementioned then they could easily be classified as weak. Socio-economic and class distinctions and personal prejudice also figure into these cold equations. Many cultures, many religions and secular ideologies have all had them. The bane of our existence.

We live in a world where the ethics and what is good tend to be written or influenced by psychopaths. That is the danger we are in. We are the sheep being trained by wolves to be wolves even as they feed on us laughing all the way.

stcfarms: “Is it your contention that seeing the truth makes me a nazi?”  nah, i don’t think you’re a nazi.  but i am wondering what “truth” it is that you’ve seen.  any sane person would agree with u on the earth having its limits and the species human cannot keep breeding exponentially.  and i agree with u that the necessary communal wisdom isn’t presently there for us to be a viable civilization.  but i inferred from your statement—civilization allows the weak to live and breed which weakens the whole—that a wise civilization would NOT allow the weak to live and breed.  i apologize if i drew an incorrect inference.

Civilization allows the weak to live and breed which weakens the whole.

Who said the above?

A. Our new Science Czar, Dr Holdren

B. Goebbels

C. Ebenezer Scrooge

D. stcfarms

If you answered “all of the above”, you win!

Is it your contention that seeing the truth makes me a nazi? I am not taking
any action to remove the excess people, nature will do that on her own.
Sticking your head up your ass will not solve the problem.

By Amon Drool, October 3 at 11:07 pm #

stcfarms: “Civilization allows the weak to live and breed which weakens the
whole.”  MEIN FUHRER!!!

stcfarms: “To work civilization will have to develop a communal wisdom to go with the vast knowledge that they have acquired.”  well, can’t argue with that.

stcfarms: “Civilization allows the weak to live and breed which weakens the whole.”  MEIN FUHRER!!!

WriterOnTheStorm:
‘The real problem with capitalism is not the disparity between the winners and the losers. It runs deeper.  Capitalism transforms life into a tragi-comic play in which each of us is cast in the dual roles of winner and loser. It is in the individual’s inability to find meaning outside the narrow proscenium arch of this hackneyed grand guignol that rends so many lives from the potential grace of true community. ...’

That isn’t peculiar to capitalism, however.  You’re more or less describing life in general, in which some people have the delusion of being winners and all are actually losers in the end.  (“Life is a bitch…. and then you die.”)  I suppose capitalism, by creating and distributing broadly enormous material powers, did make it possible for more people to experience the delusional side of life—for awhile.

Without civilization we would be free. We owe our very existence to the drive
to breed and natural selection. Natural selection keeps us strong, bright and
healthy. Civilization allows the weak to live and breed which weakens the
whole. Natural selection can be bypassed in the short term but will only lead
to a greater loss of life when the correction comes. The correction will come
soon as the population is growing exponentially while resources are
dwindling.

Civilization is a new path on the geologic time scale and eventually it may win
out but it will not happen for many millennia. To work civilization will have to
develop a communal wisdom to go with the vast knowledge that they have
acquired. In the meantime they will be subject to the laws of nature.

By Night-Gaunt, October 3 at 6:07 pm #

Sorry TAO Walker but I disagree. Without civilization we would have died out.

The real problem with capitalism is not the disparity between the winners and the losers. It runs deeper.
Capitalism transforms life into a tragi-comic play in which each of us is cast in the dual roles of winner
and loser. It is in the individual’s inability to find meaning outside the narrow proscenium arch of this
hackneyed grand guignol that rends so many lives from the potential grace of true community.

It would be reasonable to assume, as Moore does, that those who eventually come to understand that they
are never going to be the protagonist in the drama would reject the entire proceedings. But alas, the
reverse is more often true—supporting players revere the hero’s grotesque posturings, celebrate the
“accomplishment” of their own speaking roles, and pile scorn upon the walk-ons. All those extras
cluttering the stage are clearly inferior, otherwise they’d have a line or two themselves, right? And
besides, any thespian with ambitions must pay his dues by accepting whatever billing the producers see fit
to extend.

To call attention to the play’s clumsy exposition and shameless artifice is to risk being written out by
some vindictive ham upstage claiming connections to the writer, a fate usually reserved for those with a
faiblesse for ad-libbing. (I’m keenly aware that a more prudent writer would have abandoned this
metaphor sentences ago, but since greed is our theme, I’m going with creative excess).

It is the goal of each and every player to die during the performance—with sword in hand, as it were—
in dedicated service, NOT to the imaginary audience, nor even to the other actors on the troupe, but to
the play itself - to capitalism itself.

Perhaps the underlying fatalism I felt watching “Capitalism: A Love Story” stems from Moore’s coming
dangerously close to an inescapable conclusion that most of us would prefer to put on the dog’s costume
and take whatever meager bone is thrown our way, than to purposely break the spell of the illusion
holding us in thrall. For most, such an act would render the struggles of one’s entire life, up to that point
anyway, completely meaningless. We’re all too heavily invested in the drama for that to happen in
significant numbers, which is why Moore’s mournful howl-to-action will go mostly unanswered.

A while back, I read a book which I believe was Titled “The Cave Man Diet” the books premise dove tails with Tao Walkers comments about civilization. According to the book farming was the cause and start of the problem populations increased and became civilization, the premise seemed to be saying the land cannot support the people after farming. Hunter Gatherers were sustainable, with farming and civilization is not sustainable.

The theory made sense, but the writer never provided an alternative or way to correct the problem, unless it is population control and the survivors become hunter gatherers?

Socially responsible capitalism, Socialized-Capitalism, is the capitalism of the future in the United States, where socialized/communized resources will NEVER AGAIN have to be used for a life line to save “smash and grab”, greedy, self-serving Privatized-Capitalism with TENS of TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of the masses of the U.S. population’s money that deprives both them and their progeny of the necessities of life for the benefit of the private interests of Privatized-Capitalism.

What is socially responsible capitalism—Socialized-Capitalism?

Socialized-Capitalism is the use of capital, “assets that provide a revenue stream” by social institutions that benefit the masses of the population; rather than sole benefit for the few at the expense of the many, that benefit society and community, rather than the greedy self-serving self-interest of a minority contingent of society and community at the expense of the greater good of the masses of over all society and community.

It is time for a change in the United States from irresponsible Privatized-Capitalism to responsible Socialized-Capitalism that serves the greater good of society and community, rather than the greater greed of a self-interested, self-centered, and self-serving minority of opportunists within the society and community getting Corporate Welfare amounting to tens of trillions of dollars from socialized responsibility for “smash and grab” Privatized-Capitalism that goes on endlessly in the so called “economic cycle”.

Unless rabid dogs fall out of some heaven, it has to be asked from
whence comes the rabid dog that is already tearing out the throats of
wethepeople.  Using metaphors often gives certain impressions, but I
hate casting aspersions on innocent dogs.  It just ain’t their fault. 
Could we say instead, deranged humans?  Still the problem would be
metaphorical, for how can we conceive the throats of wethepeople
being torn out if all of us on TD are part of wethepeople?  Are any of
us exempt?

Seeing that no one else has asked you, TAO Walker, what the
capitalizing of the letters CON of each word in which they appear
means, I ask you now, would you tell us what they mean? Seeing them
as a pattern in your recent posts, I admit to being ignorant and
intrigued, if no one else does. I could speculate but I’d rather not spin
what they really mean for the one using them for then they would have
a fictional meaning.

rollzone has a good point and Night-Gaunt is the pragmatist
extraordinaire.  Human problems, unless dealt by Nature, are always
human in origin.  The problem with human folly and shortsightedness
is ancient, primitive.  If the millennia of human experience has not
corrected them with better mental lenses by now,  how shall we see our
way to solutions?

No, Night-Gaunt, art is not in the eye of the beholder, beauty is.  But you
really don’t mean that art and I don’t mean that beauty exists in the eye
of the beholder.  We mean something else don’‘t we?

Night-Gaunt:
’.... Without civilization we would have died out. Starting in small groups but growing larger as we could find more things we can do and better distribute the work and wealth. [I know of those who finagled it into slaver and enslaved to get more for doing nothing while many more others did everything and barely got anything in return. Something we need to avoid and to stop.]...’

It depends on what you mean by civilization.  Up until fairly recently, it meant the construction of cities and the state that goes along with them.  To construct cities in a pre-industrial age, slavery is necessary, in order to provide the necessary surplus.  Free hunter-gatherers and primitive farmers won’t do: when they have enough with a little laid by, they stop working.  Unlimited surpluses require whips, chains, clubs, the military organization of those who wield them, prisons and slave labor camps.  Rape and compulsive childbearing (still with us today) provide unlimited re-production.  The first cities were forts surrounded by slave-labor plantations.  Those who wrote about these things through the ages, being usually from the upper classes, approved.  The finer things had to be wrung from the toil of the bondsman. 

In recent times, however, “civilized” came to mean things like “rational” or “polite”—possessing some kind of reasonable culture.  Well, just about all human beings possess some kind of reasonable culture, and we don’t want to discriminate, so the term “civilization” has been expanded to cover just about every instance of social organization.  That is, it refers to about 99% of the human race, including many tribes that never practiced slavery and others that have abandoned it and therefore, in a sense, are not civilized in the older sense of the word.

Sorry TAO Walker but I disagree. Without civilization we would have died out. Starting in small groups but growing larger as we could find more things we can do and better distribute the work and wealth. [I know of those who finagled it into slaver and enslaved to get more for doing nothing while many more others did everything and barely got anything in return. Something we need to avoid and to stop.]

We can be individual and work in a collective group. But how to manage the two? That is the problem. De Chardain believed that the ultimate human (teleost) could still appear and be united with all the others into a super organization that could be simultaneously individual and collective without coercion or conflict. He was a Catholic and a religious evolutionist who looked at it from a teleological perspective through orthogenic development. He was also censored his entire life by that same church.

Certainly it would be an evolutionary stride if we as individuals could find a way to collect our powers into one cohesive whole and not lose our selves in it. That would be a change in behavior which is just as significant as a change in the gametes. But no teloests in evolution. No theoi directed way to “an ultimate” in that mix. Just survival by those who adapted the best to that particular set of circumstances. Intelligence isn’t a prerequisite for survival by any means.

Art is a creation of our particular brains and is still fluid enough that for some they have decided what is “good” and “bad” art and wish to make it nearly law. It is after all in the eye of the beholder now isn’t it?

Institutionalized “democracy” is a kind of ‘golden calf’ du jour, to which the “....huddled masses” are expected to bow-down abjectly as gratefully worshiping subject/citizens….while those self-chosen few in-the-know pay this brazen iconic idol the bare minimum of lip-service necessary to keep on fooling the rubes whose half-life ‘savings’ are being systematically looted.  Unfortunately, the best the “global” gangsters’ current crop of critics seem able to do is a call for yet more of the ‘hair’ of the rabid dog already tearing-out wethepeople’s throats.  It’s a lot like prescribing a transfusion of lead-based paint for somebody riddled with bullets.

The domesticated peoples are perishing from an actual disease, not the mis-“management” or insufficient administration of some abstract ideological CONceit.  Their shocking and awful CONdition has a name….“civilization.”  It has a mode of transmission….CONtrived “individual”-ism.

There is, of course, actual Medicine for it as well….The Tiyoshpaye Way.

HokaHey!

hello. Ms. Cantarella- hope you didn’t lose sleep. capitalist growth to the extent of oil baron globalization is opposed by American independent nonalignment until world government supersedes the American Constitution. currently when regulations are enforced the system works great, unlike the fascist greed mongering seen by grandma. Ms. Butlr should know it is not to govern by some degree, but to have a voice equal in measure to all. the fight always is between the strong and the weak, and the strong are not always the good, so the good must unite to defeat the bad. when you define your belief systems you can with unbiased discover which side you are on. a movie by a self made millionaire explaining to people how hopeless the capitalist system is to become a millionaire is just entertainment. give him your money and enjoy the show.

We can only go by what we see and to a lesser extent infer. But the end product is any one person will still hold mysteries that may never be fathomed. We do what we can with what we have, with help from others who have some things we don’t have. A mosaic that could lead us perhaps to some common wisdom, which is the ultimate in intellect, experience and intuition to make the optimum answers to the problems life presents us. Boy, do we have problems most of them made by human folly and shortsightedness.

OM made me blush.  A real male’s male lurks under that ultra-
conservative skin.  Nevertheless, when a comparison is made, by
anyone, friends, family, and nemeses, and I happen to run across them,
I look at the kind of logic offered.  Sometimes they are concluding,
metaphorically speaking and using the old cliche, by comparing apples
and oranges, while both are fruit, they are different species of fruit. 
Both can be sour at times or both can be sweet.  But that does not
necessitate that both must be sweet or sour simultaneously.  Both
however cannot be mistaken for the other regardless of what is the
case.

There are reasons why somethings may be called art, and other reasons
why somethings may legitimately be called political sophistry or
demagoguery, and not have even the slightest proximity to art.  I could
go through a lesson on why somethings may legitimately be called art,
and the inverse, why Beck’s unprincipled tirades are not art.  To save
time I will refer all those interested to the full library of Arthur Danto’s
works.  I’m sure there are others who might be favorites, i.e., Malraux,
Freeland, Wartenberg, but Danto is my favorite among favorites. 
Choose your own by googling what is art or what is its nature.  But I
think if one stops for even a reflective moment, which is longer than a
second, it is obvious to even the most conservative and liberal of minds
that there essentially is no comparison.

Quote from OzarkMichael, “Glenn Beck, “a widely successful innovator
whose ‘gags’ are usually quite successful.” 
Question: What does quite successful mean with respect to Beck? 
Popular to his devotees, or will to truth?
Quote from OM, “...they are both presenting their world view in an
artful way.”
Inasmuch as Moore, (not one of my idols, but he does present
controversial themes in cinematic form) useing the artform of
filmmaking, editing of the script, care in sequencing, cinematography,
In what way does Beck display his world view in an “artful” way?  Not all
things are art, even if they pretend to be.
Quote from OM: “...I have never hated Michael Moore.”
Question: Should we take that to imply that you love Glenn Beck?

As a frequent defender of free speech often on this website, and while I
ferociously agree that the government ought not to be arbitrating
speech unless it is seditious, I am not exactly sure what is meant by
conservative, or for that matter, liberal, talk?  I do not want to assume
any meaning here.  I completely agree that in no case should any topic
be decided for speakers.  I completely agree that in no case should the
government dictate who may or may not talk.  In all cases, except for
seditious speech, I support free speech and stand against the 1949
“Fairness Doctrine” which I find an absurdity. While I do believe that all
viewpoints ought to be able to be defended through public
interrogation, I do not think they must be subjected to simultaneous
debate by opponents of whatever is the topic.  I do think that all points
of view however ought to have equal access to public exposition.

Leefeller says: Since I do not follow either person to any large degree, my feelings are Moore seems to have a seemingly large amount of compassion towards peoples plight, which may mean I am deemed socialist.  While Glen Beck seems the opposite, why do I have a feeling Beck does not have compassion or care about people? Maybe it is their different style of presentations and how their way of discussing topics.

I think it is solely bias that generates our intense dislike. There is a style of compassion in both entertainers. If we think some of it is pretended we are wise. I dont think we can know that all of it is pretended.

Why would anyone tag-team a comment by Shenonymous?

Shenonymous said: Me, personally, I like people with bags under their eyes.  A little debauched but not so much that they are immoral.

There is something inadvertantly and naturally sexy about how Shenonymous said that. Most every guy responds to it by sticking our chests out a little, and saying to ourselves “yeah thats how I roll.”

So we have our intellectual, tough, and alluring female all rolled into one Shenonymous.

Why would anyone tag-team a comment by Shenonymous?

Here is a better question: Who wouldnt?

OM, Allowing free speech of anyone is acceptable and really does not seem part of topic?  Michel Moore being allowed to speak his mind is one thing, but comparing him to Glen Beck is most charitable to Glen Beck. Though both provide some degree of divisiveness, my stereotype of Beck must not be accurate and may be extremely skewed, especially after reading OM’s comment.

Since I do not follow either person to any large degree, my feelings are Moore seems to have a seemingly large amount of compassion towards peoples plight, which may mean I am deemed socialist.  While Glen Beck seems the opposite, why do I have a feeling Beck does not have compassion or care about people? Maybe it is their different style of presentations and how their way of discussing topics.

  I will see Moore’s movie when it comes out on DVD. For some reason if Beck made a movie I would probably wait until the next KKK meeting.

said by She: This is an important TD article and one I think most thinkers here ought to take the opportunity to submit their knowledge