Voters steer Europe to the right
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 16:35
VIEWED: 24282
PAGE 16 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But by that logic, isn't every innovation a natural innovation? Because it's a conclusion drawn from a problem or situation at hand?
Every innovation excluding things like socialism, which is not drawn from the problem at hand, ie. generating wealth. It tries to solve another problem (social justice?) by imposing on the wealth-generating system.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPO:
Yeah ok, capitalism could be called 'more natural' - in the sense I described.
Right so maybe Kwicko, JKiddo and I weren't just making it all up because we're crazy extremists who hate centrists?
But the point remains, I reject any idea that an Economy is, or should be, like a natural system. Natural systems by definition, aren't controlled by Human minds, and no matter what way you cut it economies are. Even completely Laissez faire ones.
And analogy or not, it's still an appeal to nature to say "letting the tree grow naturally is better than putting it in a glass jar".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I reject any idea that an Economy is, or should be, like a natural system. Natural systems by definition,
Forget about strict definition because it's an analogy - we're looking at similarities in the mechanisms.
You are rejecting the idea that an economy is like a natural system, but then every time I draw a comparison you are saying it's an 'appeal to nature' and crying fallacy. So it seems to me like I can't win, but I'll have a think anyway to think of some more 'natural' comparisons as well as competition.
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KPO_ when three reasonably intelligent people "misunderstand" your posts all pretty much the same way, I suggest the problem is not with the readers.
And despite all the following clarification, I'm still confused by what you're trying to say. You say that capitalism is either natural or like a natural system, then you say it's a natural "solution". You also say that it's "natural" because it includes competition... but not "dog-eat-dog" competition.
So, can you clarify for us?
In WHAT ASPECT is capitalism more natural (or like natural) than any other system (eg tribalism, fuedalism, socialism etc.)
If capitalism is a "solution", what PROBLEM is capitalism trying to solve?
IF the essence of capitalism's "naturalness" rests in its outgrowth from previous systems (as an "evolutionary step" in economic development), how do you know that FURTHER evolution would not create something even better?
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For a guy who's arguing for economic evolution, you seem to be making pretty un-natural, arbitrary exclusions.
innovation excluding things like socialism, which is not drawn from the problem at hand
FYI- socialism is trying to solve the economic problems of capitalism. The BIGGEST problem in capitalism is the regular "boom and bust" created by over-concentration of wealth and the creation of monopolies. This leads to a destruction of productive capacity and a LOSS of wealth. The second problem is the focus of production for exchange value rather than use value, leading to a distortion in resource use. The third problem (which I don't think Marx envisioned) is the stagnation of innovation due to treating ideas as property. The fourth is, of course, the trajectory towards grossly unequal distribution of wealth, which is an economic problem for the vast majority who don't see the fruits of their labor.
It seems to me that there is a certain amount of mythology built up about nature, evolution, capitalism, socialism, and economics, which doesn't have a solid foundation in reality.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Forget about strict definition because it's an analogy - we're looking at similarities in the mechanisms.
I get that, but even so it would seem wrong or irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You are rejecting the idea that an economy is like a natural system, but then every time I draw a comparison you are saying it's an 'appeal to nature' and crying fallacy. So it seems to me like I can't win, but I'll have a think anyway to think of some more 'natural' comparisons as well as competition.
Really? I thought I dealt with your comparison as to why it is nature, and said "appeal to nature" was where you at least seemed to say it was good because it was natural.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But by that logic, isn't every innovation a natural innovation? Because it's a conclusion drawn from a problem or situation at hand?
Every innovation excluding things like socialism, which is not drawn from the problem at hand, ie. generating wealth. It tries to solve another problem (social justice?) by imposing on the wealth-generating system.
Heads should roll
Signy already addressed this, but I see the same contradiction. Generating wealth was not the only problem at hand around the time that socialism was developed as a concept. The generated wealth was concentrated in a starkly heterogenic way, with a growing mass of extremely poor people with bad political representation.
Why is socialism not a "natural" innovation to deal with that problem at hand?
ETA: As an observer, I enjoyed this discussion more when it was less about who said "natural" first, and more about country statistics and money to "take home". If any of you felt inspired to get back to that, this RWED voyeur would be very happy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While this discussion is way out of my own competence zone, lemme toss a fireball into the pool just cause I wanna see what happens.
So how exactly, would one who actually knows something about this stuff, go about fitting the concepts expressed in Kropotkins Mutual Aid within this framework, as it seems to me simple cooperation is what is most "natural" right up till you add currency to the process...
And maybe even then.
-F
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents
.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lemme add a relevant bit from Chapter 7.
And remind you this was written in 1902.
The absorption of all social functions by the State necessarily favoured the development of an unbridled, narrow-minded individualism. In proportion as the obligations towards the State grew in numbers the citizens were evidently relieved from their obligations towards each other. In the guild -- and in medieval times every man belonged to some guild or fraternity two "brothers" were bound to watch in turns a brother who had fallen ill; it would be sufficient now to give one's neighbour the address of the next paupers' hospital. In barbarian society, to assist at a fight between two men, arisen from a quarrel, and not to prevent it from taking a fatal issue, meant to be oneself treated as a murderer; but under the theory of the all-protecting State the bystander need not intrude: it is the policeman's business to interfere, or not. And while in a savage land, among the Hottentots, it would be scandalous to eat without having loudly called out thrice whether there is not somebody wanting to share the food, all that a respectable citizen has to do now is to pay the poor tax and to let the starving starve. The result is, that the theory which maintains that men can, and must, seek their own happiness in a disregard of other people's wants is now triumphant all round in law, in science, in religion. It is the religion of the day, and to doubt of its efficacy is to be a dangerous Utopian. Science loudly proclaims that the struggle of each against all is the leading principle of nature, and of human societies as well. To that struggle Biology ascribes the progressive evolution of the animal world. History takes the same line of argument; and political economists, in their naive ignorance, trace all progress of modern industry and machinery to the "wonderful" effects of the same principle. The very religion of the pulpit is a religion of individualism, slightly mitigated by more or less charitable relations to one's neighbours, chiefly on Sundays. "Practical" men and theorists, men of science and religious preachers, lawyers and politicians, all agree upon one thing -- that individualism may be more or less softened in its harshest effects by charity, but that it is the only secure basis for the maintenance of society and its ulterior progress.
It seems, therefore, hopeless to look for mutual-aid institutions and practices in modern society. What could remain of them? And yet, as soon as we try to ascertain how the millions of human beings live, and begin to study their everyday relations, we are struck with the immense part which the mutual-aid and mutual-support principles play even now-a-days in human life. Although the destruction of mutual-aid institutions has been going on in practice and theory, for full three or four hundred years, hundreds of millions of men continue to live under such institutions; they piously maintain them and endeavour to reconstitute them where they have ceased to exist. In our mutual relations every one of us has his moments of revolt against the fashionable individualistic creed of the day, and actions in which men are guided by their mutual aid inclinations constitute so great a part of our daily intercourse that if a stop to such actions could be put all further ethical progress would be stopped at once. Human society itself could not be maintained for even so much as the lifetime of one single generation. These facts, mostly neglected by sociologists and yet of the first importance for the life and further elevation of mankind, we are now going to analyze, beginning with the standing institutions of mutual support, and passing next to those acts of mutual aid which have their origin in personal or social sympathies.
Human nature is not, and never was, the font of wickedness those wishing to control it "for your own good" have always told you - and it is this lie upon which abject capitalism is based, for without that control, he who does not share receives the rightful due for his behavior - wh
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I finally got back here today and saw that list and of course saw the immediate truth of the data, but you beat me to it.
Originally posted by kpo:
What's interesting about that list to me, is that all the countries above the US are small countries (and some of them oil rich states/tax havens) - but basically I think it must be an advantage being a small country. Big European countries like the UK, France, Germany are quite a bit further down the list.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME