As futurist Walter Ignatius Baltzley noted years ago, only way to end capitalism for good is to give it the ONE thing it absoultely cannot survive for long: ABUNDANCE. Capitalism needs scarcity to function, hence the need for the system to create artificial to prop itself up and paradoxically satisfy its inane and insane addiction to growth for the sake of growth. So capitalism will die when it fatally overdoses on too much capital.
The biggest flaw of all was the assumption that life is an inherently zero-sum game, and thus it was doomed from the start. Fix that flaw, and you fix the rest of it.
Agreed. That is why socialist egalitarians like myself want nothing to do with race-hustling, the DEI "inclusion by exclusion" nonsense, or talk of reparations. We support full equality for everyone via universal programs that elevate the entire working class, not divisive policies that give to one group of working class people but not to another. There is no longer any material justification for this zero-sum game because we now have the technological capacity to produce an abundance for all. This finally enables us to end class divisions and any one group benefiting at the expense of another, such as giving cash allotments or jobs with good compensation to one group of workers but not another. The zero-sum game only nurtures resentments between different demographics and keeps the 99% from uniting as a class to establish a better system for everyone. Schemes or policies to elevate some groups within the existing system are designed to preserve the status quo rather than change it to one that works for everybody. This is why the liberal movement of the '60s and '70s gave us affirmative action for blacks and women only instead of universal programs that would eliminate class divisions and provide a great material abundance for everyone.
Cristofer -- thanks for this explanation. I see you as someone very interested in class struggle and social revolution. I think you have a great future ahead of you. But you need to read more. Many of your ideas, particularly about socialism, are derived from what you have learned from anti-Marxist and liberal sources. Your opinions on the Russian revolution have not developed beyond bourgeois prejudice. I recommend reading Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution," followed by "The Revolution Betrayed." --Jim (jmiller803@gmail.com)
Hi, James. I'm not sure how recognizing the technological limits at the time and place of the Russian Revolution and arguing *against* the typical bourgeois and anti-Marxist sources, not to mention attempts by conservatives and liberals alike to tie Marxism in with modern Regressive Left identity politics, is somehow actually derived by these people, but I'm always glad to read more. Thanks for the recommendations.
Cristofer -- Sorry, I didn't mean to make a negative judgment of you.
But, of course, those of us who live in capitalist societies become immersed in bourgeois ideology as we grow up. We absorb many bourgeois ideas and affinities in the same way that we learn to speak our natal language. It comes from our parents, neighbors and friends, our teachers, what we see on TV and what we read. And I certainly recognize you have made a lot of progress in casting off the influences of bourgeois ideology -- perhaps you can recognize me as another person who has done the same. If you wish to contact me, feel free. -- Jim (jmiller803@gmail.com)
Thank you for your kind words of support, James. I know it was your intent to simply speak frankly to me, not to judge me in a negative fashion.
Believe me, I fully understand that we all pick up bourgeois ideas and affinities via every aspect of our lives, and that we have been "trained" via what passes for our official education and via all aspects of the news & entertainment media et al to either defend or just simply accept the current world order as eternal, with no better alternative possible or even imaginable. I have tried hard to shed these ideas, and I think I succeeded by a relatively early point in my life when I discovered Marxian socialism.
Hence, I think it's evident throughout my writings that my strong, oft-stated belief that we have not reached a historical zenith with capitalism, that a system that runs on barter, money, and private ownership of the industries is now obsolete and needs to be replaced with an entirely post-capital classless, moneyless, and stateless society where all the industries are socially owned by all the workers and operated to meet the needs & reasonable wants of all of us with no fiscal price tag denying access on artificial grounds, which would constitute Industrial Democracy, is in no way indicative that I'm still supporting bourgeois ideas, or supporting the identity-obsessed views of liberals, or the authoritarian state class rule of the former Soviet Union and other similar systems posing as "communism" during the 20th century. And I think the fact that I routinely piss off conservatives, Libertarians, Mainstream Liberals, Maoists, and even some Social Democrats make this pretty clear :-)
As futurist Walter Ignatius Baltzley noted years ago, only way to end capitalism for good is to give it the ONE thing it absoultely cannot survive for long: ABUNDANCE. Capitalism needs scarcity to function, hence the need for the system to create artificial to prop itself up and paradoxically satisfy its inane and insane addiction to growth for the sake of growth. So capitalism will die when it fatally overdoses on too much capital.
The biggest flaw of all was the assumption that life is an inherently zero-sum game, and thus it was doomed from the start. Fix that flaw, and you fix the rest of it.
Agreed. That is why socialist egalitarians like myself want nothing to do with race-hustling, the DEI "inclusion by exclusion" nonsense, or talk of reparations. We support full equality for everyone via universal programs that elevate the entire working class, not divisive policies that give to one group of working class people but not to another. There is no longer any material justification for this zero-sum game because we now have the technological capacity to produce an abundance for all. This finally enables us to end class divisions and any one group benefiting at the expense of another, such as giving cash allotments or jobs with good compensation to one group of workers but not another. The zero-sum game only nurtures resentments between different demographics and keeps the 99% from uniting as a class to establish a better system for everyone. Schemes or policies to elevate some groups within the existing system are designed to preserve the status quo rather than change it to one that works for everybody. This is why the liberal movement of the '60s and '70s gave us affirmative action for blacks and women only instead of universal programs that would eliminate class divisions and provide a great material abundance for everyone.
Well-said overall.
Cristofer -- thanks for this explanation. I see you as someone very interested in class struggle and social revolution. I think you have a great future ahead of you. But you need to read more. Many of your ideas, particularly about socialism, are derived from what you have learned from anti-Marxist and liberal sources. Your opinions on the Russian revolution have not developed beyond bourgeois prejudice. I recommend reading Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution," followed by "The Revolution Betrayed." --Jim (jmiller803@gmail.com)
Hi, James. I'm not sure how recognizing the technological limits at the time and place of the Russian Revolution and arguing *against* the typical bourgeois and anti-Marxist sources, not to mention attempts by conservatives and liberals alike to tie Marxism in with modern Regressive Left identity politics, is somehow actually derived by these people, but I'm always glad to read more. Thanks for the recommendations.
Cristofer -- Sorry, I didn't mean to make a negative judgment of you.
But, of course, those of us who live in capitalist societies become immersed in bourgeois ideology as we grow up. We absorb many bourgeois ideas and affinities in the same way that we learn to speak our natal language. It comes from our parents, neighbors and friends, our teachers, what we see on TV and what we read. And I certainly recognize you have made a lot of progress in casting off the influences of bourgeois ideology -- perhaps you can recognize me as another person who has done the same. If you wish to contact me, feel free. -- Jim (jmiller803@gmail.com)
Thank you for your kind words of support, James. I know it was your intent to simply speak frankly to me, not to judge me in a negative fashion.
Believe me, I fully understand that we all pick up bourgeois ideas and affinities via every aspect of our lives, and that we have been "trained" via what passes for our official education and via all aspects of the news & entertainment media et al to either defend or just simply accept the current world order as eternal, with no better alternative possible or even imaginable. I have tried hard to shed these ideas, and I think I succeeded by a relatively early point in my life when I discovered Marxian socialism.
Hence, I think it's evident throughout my writings that my strong, oft-stated belief that we have not reached a historical zenith with capitalism, that a system that runs on barter, money, and private ownership of the industries is now obsolete and needs to be replaced with an entirely post-capital classless, moneyless, and stateless society where all the industries are socially owned by all the workers and operated to meet the needs & reasonable wants of all of us with no fiscal price tag denying access on artificial grounds, which would constitute Industrial Democracy, is in no way indicative that I'm still supporting bourgeois ideas, or supporting the identity-obsessed views of liberals, or the authoritarian state class rule of the former Soviet Union and other similar systems posing as "communism" during the 20th century. And I think the fact that I routinely piss off conservatives, Libertarians, Mainstream Liberals, Maoists, and even some Social Democrats make this pretty clear :-)