[quote]
aleph-0 wrote...
@ madisk / Zulu: Still digesting all the info provided and points made; thanks for offering so much to think about!
[/quote]
You are welcome.
Let's see how you work under pressure.
/puts out a cigarette.
[quote]
superimposed wrote...
[quote]Capitalism is a BAMF, like Chuck Norris. Nobody can stand against Chuck
Norris, and nobody can stand against Capitalism. And the only proper
match in a fight against Capitalism is Capitalism. The only difference
is that while Chuck Norris in a fight against himself will win, the
Capitalism in the fight against itself will eventually lose[/quote]
Chuck Norris thinks the world was made in six days by a magic man who grants wishes, he's a moron.
[/quote]
Capitalism thinks so as well.
[quote]
Secondly, Capitalism is not an ideological system, it is purely an economic system.
[/quote]
That’s the point.
Communists say: our principle is the abolishment of private property.
Fascists say: our principle is the strictly hierarchical social structure.
Religious fundamentalists say: our principle is that there is a supernatural being and everyone must obey its commands.
Capitalists say: our principle is that we have no principle.
[quote]
It hasn't beaten any ideology.
[/quote]
Of course it didn’t. You can’t beat an ideology. But you can and capitalist society did beat the societies that were based on those principles. So that those ideologies were effectively marginalized. When the capitalism will eventually defeat itself (by the overpopulation and global warming) those ideologies will resurge, provided there are any survivors. The religious fundamentalism will come first, because it’s primitive. But given the level of tech and science currently achieved, it will have hard times competing with modern ones. Maybe some new never before seen ideology will be “invented” as well.
[quote]
Capitalist countries employ nationalism, employ religion, employ socialism and communism.
[/quote]
True, but the essence of those ideologies doesn’t make it. They all demand that the economic activity of the society be organized according to and in support of the basic principle. They can even employ some capitalist practices, but the day they swap seats with capitalism, and the moneybags start running the show, the society becomes capitalist. The principle is done with, the ideology becomes just a superficial envelop until officially discarded, public morals deteriorate, and here you are, democracy and freedom, where each consumer is entitled to anything he/she can pay for.
[quote]
China is a communist country with Capitalist elements.
[/quote]
Communism in China dies hard because it has sort of melded with millennia-long tradition of Confucianism, and the CPC seems eager to adhere to authoritarian rule. But the basic principle has been compromised, and the economic policies are largely determined by the global market demand, rather than CPC’s objectives. They severely tax their population and businesses, and have enough resources to prevent any political intervention. But the fact is that China has become an element built in the global market economy, and as such it is not actually communist.
[quote]
Iran is a Theocracy with Capitalist elements,
[/quote]
Agreed, the principle if Islam is not compromised to capitalist elements in the economy, and Iran isn’t a WTO member. That’s why it is labeled a “rogue state”.
[quote]
America has an absurd level of nationalism and is considered THE capitalist country of the world.
[/quote]
Americans may love their country, but they love their credit cards even more.
[quote]
So no, it hasn't defeated ****. It's just snuggled in along nicely with them, changing from place to place and time to time, never retaining a form.
[/quote]
We have the global market, WTO and international competition law. Dollars rule this planet. If some People’s Army private with red star on his helmet thinks that he lives in communism, it’s his own business, and is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
[quote]
Reagan was the Capitalist Mojo of America, and under his guidance you saw Occupational health and Safety diminished in place of Corporate interests, and quality control for consumer goods diminished in place of Corporate Interests, and as a direct result of both the American people payed a great deal, not least of which was the Salmonella outbreak caused by the presence of Fecal matter in the meat. That was caused by a combination of over-working employees and lacking any system of regulation to moderate the quality of the meat.
[/quote]
I think I’m missing the point here. If you refer to the fact that people suffered under Reagan administration, I’ll say it’s irrelevant. Capitalism is not about people, it’s about dollars (currency). If you refer to my point that the government in capitalist society should uphold competition and restrain big corporations, I’ll reiterate, that it is the “long run” imperative. Short periods of corporate rampage may be beneficial to the capitalist system as a whole, especially when there is a pesky Soviet block that needs to be finished. Anyway there is
the other party, to deal with the corporations.
[quote]
madisk wrote...
Your analogy doesn't fit.
[/quote]
Whatever…
[quote]
I'm aware that modern eugenics incorporate gene therapy, but like
I said, once we overcome the problems with gene therapy and fully
understand our genetic makeup, eugenics itself will be obsolete.
[/quote]
How can “eugenics itself” become obsolete, if “eugenics itself” claims gene therapy? And some problems with gene therapy are inherent. First of all it is treatment, not prevention. Secondly, when you get to the gene therapy at embryo stage, it will be “more rational” to just create babies in test tubes with any genome you like. And then it will be just a matter of time before somebody with enough pull in the government will come up with the idea, that little folks are no longer eligible to have babies of their own. Wouldn’t it be a little more “questionable” than “eugenics itself”?
[quote]
I was referring to the rather random process of disassembling and recombining parent DNA into the offspring's genetic information.
[/quote]
I thought so, but you should have avoided that accidental misuse of the term “natural selection”. Accidental misuses of established terms are the mother of all myths and pseudosciences. And, however random the genetic mechanism employed in selective breeding maybe, I can’t see how it may hurt, when the mechanism employed by natural selection is exactly the same, but the result is even more randomized by the lack of the intellectual factor present in selective breeding.
Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 15 mars 2010 - 08:59 .
Retour en haut
