[Timo]

Both the Chinese and Soviet economic systems depended on unfettered growth. Same with capitalism. The alternative to unfettered growth, then, is to place a monetary value to the continued viability on the planet, itself.

I'm not sure what i'd own, then, if i owned 10 shares of a habitable planet, but if 4 billion people all owned 10 shares, or 100 shares in a habitable planet, that would certainly make a difference in how our economy works. The definition of "habitable," of course, would have to be heavily regulated and monitored (by me!).

The return on investment would be a viable future. Until a monetary value on a habitable planet is determined, the planet will continue to be raped until no life is left.

This might not be an alternative to capitalism so much as an alternative to BAU.

How many people would buy shares in a habitable future? Not a product that would create a habitable future, but that habitable future, itself? What's that worth to you? You would not receive anything in return except the continuation of a habitable planet for you, your children, and future generations. Is that return greater than your investment in Exxon Mobile? Is than return greater than your investment in Apple, or Nike, or Tesla, or GM, or NVIDIA?

Obviously, this alternative "product" would require the cessation of the production of nearly every other product on the planet. Not all, but the vast majority. A crash in the global economy would ensue, imediately. That's why shares in a habitable planet would need to be purchased and traded along with every other share of every other company that's also currently traded. The habitable planet would need to be purchased gradually within our current capitalistic structure so as not to immediatley displace all of life as we currently know it.

[Pops]

I read a thing about the 50 choices and how they are so much worse for our peace of mind since we can never be quite sure which is the right one. And after we do pick we become convinced we didn't, LoL

Timo, I'm pretty sure that the old english land based system was pretty strict in doing something similar to what you say. They always kept the estate together and always handed it down to the oldest (boy I presume) and whatever kids came after just kinda hung on the coat tails. Others (Ireland maybe) split the inheritance into pieces with the effect all the kids got the same increasingly worthless, smaller and smaller piece.

That could be way off though...

[americandream]

Timo

The USSR was a lot closer to the circular socialist model than people realise. For one thing there was no personalised car use.....look at old pictures of Moscow.....it was an ecologists dream.

Lenin was an exceptional man for his time in recognising the decadent effect of parliamentarianism which he had to foresight to recognise for the careerism it really is, Green, Social Democratic or Conservative credentials notwithstanding. The Soviets cultivated the fine arts, raised the young with a keen sense of community, maintained a needs based modernity and developed a mix of cultures along common circular principles.

Difficulties of course lay in seeking to create a challenge to the globalisation of accumulation as the Soviets were harrassed from the outset and were in a constant state of externalised vigilance rather than internal reconstruction.

Nature has bequeathed us with the capacity to recreate its dialecticism through a conscious harnessing of its forces for our collective security and development. We are not pristinely subjective as our animal brethren but of course evolution also contemplates the removal of a species by their devolution and a fall away from modernity will see us thus regressing. All of this will be in a climate degraded planet so in essence we will be embarked on the road to planet wide extinction.

[americandream]

Not simplistic at all, just simple.
If the evil of capitalism is growing consumption, the only conscientious choice is to quit consuming.

pretty well free I'd say.

The last thing we want to do is walk away from collective suicide. Change will have to be through organisation and organisation is going to cost me money, lots of it....on the scale that effectively places me in the capitalist class in terms of my capacity to generate it, but in the revolutionary class in terms of why I am generating it.

There will be two types engaged within the process as we draw to the close of this phase of mans social relations development....reactionaries who yearn for the return of some form of landed privilege from the likes of Cog who yearns for the return of human commodifying landed rentism to you guys who capture a contemporary Ludditism....and revolutionaries who understand the nature of time, history and our planets material forces as it moulds its inhabitants in its circuit around the sun.

[americandream]

pre capitalton and the first one capilton....the one he is now in.
The walls of precapilton
He is as much a function of his container as was he in precapitalton

WTF AD, I googled capilton and nothing came up. Can you please enlighten us with your vocabulary here?

I am sometimes perplexed by you..... who speak of the need of educating with reason and logic and yet your efforts to do so are so friggen obtuse......

Ibon Onlooker

The two tons were intended to be fictitious places, one a capitalist space the other feudal, each intended to represent the sort of person we are invariably in each space.(Ton is Scottish for town so I apologise for the confusion)

As nomadic tribals, the system was directed at enhancing the hunting and gathering of food, both in how we bred and who we deferred to....the hunting class In fedual systems the defending and landed nobleman whose estate we sought shelter in. In capitalism our employer. At each stage in our cultural evolution we have worn the clothes of values appropriate for that cultural space

With our consciousness rising with the passing of each system we become increasingly aware of these dynamics and it is PRECISELY the challenges of history where we use this expanding consciousness as evolution clearly intends rather than run around the place screaming fire.

We have tools freely available in the web and libraries and such like. Use them and become a resource, not just another fearful and incomprehensible specimen. Unlike our animal brethren we do not have that excuse.

[Ibon]

FWIW

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/j ... are_btn_fb

As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started.

[onlooker]

I think we have gotten so caught up in our reflections and insights regarding this HUGE shadow which hangs over us of systemic failure and collapse that unfortunately we(meaning not just on this site but humans), I think should do some soul searching in other respects. I speak of how we treat and have treated each other as well as other sentient beings here on Earth. This speaks directly to who we have been and who we wish to be. This evolution in consciousness must address this age old question of good and evil within humans. In some respects it correlates with the features of the world in which we live in now. Competition and warfare have flamed and precipitated the cumulative and growth process of civilization whereby warfare allowed technology to leapfrog forward while competition spurred greater and more in terms of empire building and such. So whatever future awaits us, I sincerely hope that we continue to evolve in terms of being kinder and gentler beings towards each other and all of life.

[americandream]

FWIW

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/j ... are_btn_fb

As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started.

Excellent find and a good explanation of the forces at play. The old left committed the one cardinal sin of historical analysis...they refused to remove their subjective specs and in the process tried to force fit material dialectic forces into their emotive little boxes, in the process losing their direction and failing. Give them their due though, they set the groundwork for the onset of Enlightenment and for that we owe them a debt of gratitude. Without these progressive forces there would have been no due process or constitutional law.

Without meaning to sound esoteric, one can in fact discern evolutions intent for us when one contemplates what full dispassion looks like....as opposed to sentiment driven petulance. When we talk for example of a new order, it conjures up authoritarian images but that is as far from dispassionate social economy as one can get. That does not signfy that we descend into so Faustian basement of mindless and cold relationships. It simply means that we bring non attachment to the material whilst engaging the conscious....where human relationships matter and not the objects we possess. Possessions no longer take ownership of us but serve us as intended. Nor does it mean that a command economy doles out favours as that cannot be contemplated in a dispassionate material construct. Sounds a little Buddhist but lets not forget that at its core, the Buddhist message is secular. This sensuous enlightenment extends to our relationships with our animal brethren and of course our home planet. Between the genders where relations are based on mature bonds and between parent and child which fully realises that primeval bond. Between the varieties of humankind where each of our cultures assumes a commonality ensuring its preservation in the family of cultures.

Evolution has bequeathed a significant advantage on man in terms of his potential and opportunities and this emerging crisis is the catalyst for the next leap. It is why I posted with the persistence that I have and which naturally has annoyed many for appearing trollish. It is important that we collect the data on the crisis whilst reminding ourselves that that is only the beginning of our next epic journey.

It is important that we recognise that the continuing progressive forces are an expression of this process and not political correctness gone haywire.

[onlooker]

thanks AD, for your continued enlightening posts. From my understanding your description of human relation to objects is quite logical. Without the emotive response to consumerism and accumulation we can simply treat the material world for what it can provide for us while separating this material world from the animate and living beings who inhabit it and who we can have some sort of positive relation with. Hope I am accurately distilling your points of emphasis.

[onlooker]

Gas, they are beyond convincing we must absorb them into the 99% or eliminate them. The world cannot no longer afford to be led by or to follow egomaniacs and fools.

[americandream]

thanks AD, for your continued enlightening posts. From my understanding your description of human relation to objects is quite logical. Without the emotive response to consumerism and accumulation we can simply treat the material world for what it can provide for us while separating this material world from the animate and living beings who inhabit it and who we can have some sort of positive relation with. Hope I am accurately distilling your points of emphasis.

In a circular needs based economy our relationship with the inorganic is natural, not forced. How we use it merely expresses our creativity as a tooling species but beyond that is as natural as that of a species in pristine and balanced subjectivity. Our relationship with the organic is sensuous on many levels and by sensuous I mean acute awareness borne of a natural bond with the organic. Needs based use establishes a complete change in how we for example relate to say a neighbouring forest both as a lot for timber and land for living enabling us to truly maximise our conscious experience of this planet....to be fully in it. Circular social relations stand capitalist relations in the shadows, feudal relations in chains and primitive socialism in the confines of the unknowing instinct realm.

[Quinny]

Some views from the PCF on how process needs to start - interestingly it doesn't seem to put much emphasis on central planning. (in English).

I like the direct comparison of the cost of capital with costs attributed to social charges! Not a view you see promoted by the MSM.

END THE DICTATORSHIP OF FINANCIAL MARKETS
To finance human development, it is necessary to cut back the cost of capital. The truth is
that it is bank interest rates, fees and dividends that sink business accounts: 309 billion euro
with dividends and other financial revenue, among the highest in the European Union.
It is not what big bosses refer to as «the cost of work» – 145 billion euro of social charges
paid by employers (and which is invested usefully in health care or ends up as consumer
spending) – as «an obstacle to competitiveness». The word compétitivité is new to the French
language, but the idea is an old one, and has become the alpha and the omega to keep workers
down and financial profits up

[onlooker]

I think this is what many are familiar with as the jargon of Marxist philosophy that cited the exploitation of the working class by capitalists. Well it is not just the working class they exploit, they exploit anyone and anything they can hence their exploitation of this planet. It is inherent in the nature of capitalism to exploit to seek maximum net profit at costs preferably deferred to society at large

[ralfy]

What is bad about capitalism?

The exponential function

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013- ... to-the-end

So stop growing.
Stop reproducing, consuming, earning, destroying.
Shrink.

Sitting around carping about growth while one is participating and perpetuating it is about the height of hypocrisy.

LoL, all you rich folks bitching with your mouths full of cake crack me up.

I think the purpose is not to complain about capitalism but to answer your question.

[ralfy]

Not simplistic at all, just simple.
If the evil of capitalism is growing consumption, the only conscientious choice is to quit consuming.

pretty well free I'd say.

Unfortunately, part of that consumption involves basic needs, such as food, clothes to keep warm, medicine, etc.

One source indicates that even with basic needs we may already be in overshoot:

https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905

[ralfy]

I think hunkering down as prep is one thing, voluntarily dropping out of the "earn as much as possible" group because one thinks the system is bad is a different thing. What sets capitalism apart from other isms, is the ability (or at least possibility) that a person (theoretically from any class) can make a lot of money, that is the whole point isn't it?

Private ownership for private profit and as much profit as possible?

I don't see anyone arguing against that in this thread, lots of highfalutin ideals and opaque phraseology but no one saying, "Me first, I'm gonna stop growing, stop accumulating, get rid of my stuff."

Of course a lot of old farts here, easy for me to say I'm not all that interested in more kids, bigger house, higher income. I wasn't real old when I sorta cashed out, I'd already done some damage, but I can't really brag about not being in the race now.

I think that point was discussed in the capitalism thread and elsewhere. This one is supposed to deal with alternatives.

[ralfy]

I'm pretty sure capitalism only has a passing connection to global warming, the totalitarian whatsit that was the USSR or the centrally controlled whatsit of China both seems to be doing just as bad as the capitalism of the US at polluting the environment. I guess the difference is we were just more successful at making bank and blowing it on stuff.

The other difference in the US is people do have a choice of what they will do to earn, how much the want to earn, how much they will spend, what kind of company they will spend it with, etc.

My opinion is people are acquisitive. We just want. It is part of our DNA to be unsatisfied, it is what makes us restless, inventive, it drives us to acquire stuff.

At least some of us, the others are slackers.

I think the connection between capitalism (at least industrial capitalism) and global warming is strong, i.e., in light of extensive fossil fuel use for mining, manufacturing, shipping, etc. And not just global warming. There are more details here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

I can't recall any studies that show lack of satisfaction in DNA, but I do know that human beings will have to adjust to physical limits of the biosphere whether they like to or not.

[ralfy]

My opinion is people are acquisitive. We just want. It is part of our DNA to be unsatisfied, it is what makes us restless, inventive, it drives us to acquire stuff.

Nature or nurture. I agree there is a nature component in this primate brain of ours. Seeking status through acquisitions and security. But there is a strong nurture component from our culture that influences the objects we choose for status.

I have mentioned in the past that when a shopper goes into the grocery store and ponders over the diversity of 50 brands of deodorant this accesses a part of his primate brain that evolved in ecosystems with rich biodiversity. The same could be said for surfing the internet..... I make the claim that these are all artificial ersatz choices that never quite satiate and satisfy like what you find in nature.... of course this is my bias and it is easy to refute my claim because why has every culture on the planet submitted so willingly to these ersatz objects if spending time in nature is the origin and more authentic?

I have no answer to that other than to say we are perhaps a flawed species. Then again, I know how much we treasure something that is about to disappear, like the last chocolate in the box.......will we return to cherishing what we have destroyed when the chocolate box is almost depleted?

I have no answer any longer to this question and truly find myself retreating into my private world. Maybe because I have been back in the US a couple of weeks and the primate collective around me is just so much more fxxking neurotic than the howler monkeys I am surrounded by in Panama.

That reminds me of one article about hunter-gatherers discussed here:

how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways-t67950.html

[ralfy]

I read a thing about the 50 choices and how they are so much worse for our peace of mind since we can never be quite sure which is the right one. And after we do pick we become convinced we didn't, LoL

Timo, I'm pretty sure that the old english land based system was pretty strict in doing something similar to what you say. They always kept the estate together and always handed it down to the oldest (boy I presume) and whatever kids came after just kinda hung on the coat tails. Others (Ireland maybe) split the inheritance into pieces with the effect all the kids got the same increasingly worthless, smaller and smaller piece.

That could be way off though...

I think it's part of primogeniture. I recall Fukuyama discussing it in Trust.