In my opinion, the whole debate cannot proceed until one has defined “capitalism” carefully. What is the essence of capitalism?
I think these are the core and essential attributes of capitalism:
(1) where there are strong (if often limited or circumscribed) private property rights;
(2) where most capital goods are privately owned and where most investment decisions are made privately. Defined in this sense, it is obvious that capitalism can come in many forms.
Here is just a small set of possible capitalist systems:
(1) a Rothbardian capitalist system where no government exists and where everything is privatised including justice;
(2) a Misesian or Hayekian Classical liberal capitalist system, where there is a minimal night-watchman state with basic public infrastructure (under Hayek’s system it might have some minimal social and economic interventions);
(3) a neoliberal capitalist system where governments attempt to control macroeconomics by monetary policy and varying degrees of government intervention (such as public infrastructure spending, regulation, social security, basic social services, and welfare), but where labour markets are deregulated, governments try to balance budgets, and involuntary unemployment is often a serious problem;
(4) a capitalist system where a Keynesian state maintains full employment by fiscal policy, strongly regulates businesses, and provides extensive social services (such as health care, education, and unemployment benefits) and welfare, strong public infrastructure spending, but where nationalisation of certain industries/services is minimal or non-existent;
(5) a capitalist system where a Keynesian state maintains full employment by fiscal policy, strongly regulates businesses, has strong public infrastructure, provides generous social services (such as health care, education, and unemployment benefits) and generous welfare, and where some industries are nationalised (e.g., the commanding heights of the economy).
I do not see any substantive problem with capitalism when it comes in form (4) or (5). (4) and (5) are what we would call the social democratic mixed economies of the post-WWII era.
The problem with capitalism is when it comes in forms (1), (2), or (3) (or anything in between).Some would agree with this five-fold structure but others would deny that social democracy (# 4 and #5) in any of its forms constitute capitalism. Rather, they are forms of a mixed economy that combines features of capitalism and socialism. The argument is that self-ownership, self-autonomy, and ownership of property are the only basic natural rights, and other rights are constructed rather than natural.
Some would strongly contest the claim that neoliberalism with central banking cannot be a genuine form of capitalism, since a central bank setting interest rates, for example, is a technocratic command system.
I don't have any issue with the two assumptions of capitalism that Lord Keynes lists, in that I think they are generally agreed upon. However, I would define capitalism somewhat differently as that form of social, political and economic organization that favors "capital" (consolidating ownership of capital goods and land) over "labor," using the terminology of the traditional factors.
However, "capital," like "money," is a weasel word that is probably best avoided unless it is defined operationally (recalling the Cambridge capital controversy). "Labor" is also a weasel word because it includes all employees, workers, management and top management. I would rename the traditional factors, technology, the environment and the people as a matter of rectification of names in the traditional Chinese sense of social structure.
The Rectification of Names (Chinese: 正名; pinyin: Zhèngmíng; Wade–Giles: Cheng-ming) is the Confucian doctrine that to know and use the proper designations of things in the web of relationships that creates meaning, a community, and then behaving accordingly so as to ensure social harmony is The Good.[1] Since social harmony is of utmost importance, without the proper rectification of names, society would essentially crumble and "undertakings [would] not [be] completed." [2]Then it becomes a question of whether favoring technological innovation to promote growth is a reasonable strategy based on assuming trickle down to the people based on a rising tide lifting all boats, and ignoring externalities that adversely affect people and the environment.
If people and the environment are prioritized socially, politically and economically over technology, is that still capitalism?
Social Democracy For The 21St Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective
Paul Mason on “Is Capitalism Dead?”
Lord Keynes
51 comments:
In the western world, (1) and (2) never existed or disappeared long ago and (4) and (5) seem to be well on their way to extinction, with all countries essentially converging towards a version of (3).
But perhaps the Chinese system is a version of (5) - though with specific features such as relatively modest social services, high inequality of incomes and labor unions controlled by the state.
I think the whole debate misses the point.
The issue is whether you inject money at the top of society or the bottom. Do you have a 'trickle down' system where you over provide services to the wealthy, or a 'bubble up' system where you provide needed services to the poor.
The rest is actually just the division between 'leisure' and 'work'. What you'll find is that lots of information types of work are becoming leisure - hence music performing, journalistic writing, authorship, software production, etc.
What capitalism is trying to do is stop things that are currently 'work' from becoming 'leisure' via enforcing artificial property right, whereas of course we in MMT know that what you need to do is just pay people a wage for acceptable activities regardless of the ownership relationship and call it 'work' - under a Job Guarantee.
The capitalists don't like this of course, but society as a whole shouldn't really care about that. If people don't want to eat beef so much any more, then you just farm less cattle.
Methinks capitalists & communists scared one another with false absolutes, and in the process forgot to scale up their social species.
Same way peasants & bullies scared one another with aristocracy (capitalism) & communism.
It's been a long, slow distraction.
Right, Neil.
Pass-through economies (tribalism) are far more resilient as well as efficient, long term.
Point-of-force economies (capitalism) are transient events that go away as soon as organizational methods scale up enough to manage population frictions.
We're just not there yet. Our population explosion has systematically destroyed all meticulously evolved tribal cultures, and we haven't yet found ways to scale up tribal-methods to supra-tribal populations. That still requires far better/faster/leaner communication systems.
And yes, captalism is just more distributed mercantilism, which is just bandit culture or gang-warfare on a larger scale.
(1) where there are strong (if often limited or circumscribed) private property rights;
(2) where most capital goods are privately owned and where most investment decisions are made privately;
(3) the existence of wage labour.
1+2=3 but not necessarily so. If we are all 'capitalists', then wages should be outlawed in favor of profit share. Arrangements such as franchising would also be antithetical to capitalism.
Other definitions:
Capitalism - pursuit of profit
Rentism - pursuit of rent
Wageism - pursuit of wages
Capitalism - where Labour serves the needs of Capital
Labourism - where Capital serves the needs of Labour
Definitions aren't an obstacle to a debate. They help to describe what can be observed. The distinct ways of making a living are here to stay, in varying proportions. The ways in which we organize ourselves change slowly relative to the human lifespan. And much of that 'change' is more akin to recycling.
"natural rights"?
What the hell is a natural right anyway? Rights dont come down from on high, thats just a problematic holdover from our ignorant religious days. Rights dont exist in the animal kingdom and thats all humans are, a type of animal that can walk, talk and perform complex abstract thinking and planning. The only rights that we have are the ones that we have given ourselves. More religious economics from the mainstream.
Definitions aren't an obstacle to a debate.
Whoever frames the key terms and their definition and sets the rules controls the narrative and wins the debated not based on reasoning but rhetoric and sophistry. This is a method of justification and control with a long history, discussion of which in logic goes back at least to ancient Greece.
Recognition of it was a chief contribution of Socrates, taken up by Plato in his Dialogues based on dialectic. Plato's student Aristotle shifted the emphasis of logic to categorical logic rather than dialectical. These two traditions run through Western thought.
What the hell is a natural right anyway?
The Declaration gives the answer as self-evidence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.,,,,
It's 18th century thinking (John Locke) that goes back at least to the medieval doctrine of natural law, which can be traced to the earliest history of thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
"Some would agree with this five-fold structure but others would deny that social democracy (# 4 and #5) in any of its forms constitute capitalism. Rather, they are forms of a mixed economy that combines features of capitalism and socialism."
In which case, no country has ever had a capitalist economy. The state has always had a strong, guiding hand in economic history. If Rothbardian and Hayekian precepts were followed, the alleged capitialist economies we see would not exist.
Instead, the question should be: can there be can a civilised and developed economy exist in a Rothbardian and Hayekian sense? The answer is clearly no. Not only no, but it is impossible for it to be the case.
Without a state sector, there is no capitalism. Socialism may or may not be able to exist without some elements of capitalism, but capitalism cannot exist without elements of what can only be called state socialism.
Whoever frames the key terms and their definition and sets the rules controls the narrative and wins the debated not based on reasoning but rhetoric and sophistry.
Developing their own terminology did not allow Marxism to control or win anything. In a way it did the opposite, by identifying and discrediting anyone who used those terms.
'Winning a debate' is common, even inevitable, but consensus is rare. Those pesky Marxist and Confucian definitions will not be vanquished.
Btw, 'Western thought' is becoming an oxymoron. An example of squandering one's heritage.
Developing their own terminology did not allow Marxism to control or win anything. In a way it did the opposite, by identifying and discrediting anyone who used those terms.
Marxism was the dominant economic theory in a large part of the world from much of the previous century, and in spite of rumors of its death, it is still very much alive in updated forms. In case anyone hadn't noticed, Marx is being read and discussed pretty widely in the West these days after having been persona non grata for an extended period.
The chief economic, political and military competitive of the liberal US and West is Communist China. Last time I checked the CCP was still running things, and anyone who thinks that China has become a "capitalist" economy because China has liberalized in some areas is way off the mark.
Caleb Maupin, The Chinese Dream Plows Onward: The Truth About China’s Stock Market
Marxism is alive in theory rather than practice. As always, there is disagreement on the definitions, and the harshest critics are to be found on the far left and the ultra left. Excepting a few Stalinists, Socialism/Communism was never achieved.
China is an authoritarian version of (5). I prefer State Capitalism to describe it. Why CCP politicians prefer to use terms developed by dead white people from another culture is unfathomable.
The role of Marxism was/is to critique Capitalism. And that is a valuable role. As a means to achieve a workable alternative, it failed.
Does China harbor an inferiority complex towards Western thought and culture?
Marxism is alive in theory rather than practice
Perhaps the same could be said about Keynesianism.
Interesting to observe how Keynes, who often ridiculed Marx (contrary to more knowledgeable contemporary conservatives, such as Schumpeter, who studied and greatly admired Marx) ultimately shared a common destiny with his rival.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"
The only shred of implicit logic in that is the weakly inferred message that "teamwork works"
That's the whole story of social species, in a nutshell.
The probelem of free-riding, and methods for dealing with it, go back to the first social-amoebas.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016895251000226X
http://iom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/A2B225DDD75C42F68483F1480C23CD64.ashx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictyostelid
Tom-
There is no Creator to give us anything, certainly not human legal rights. That's outdated and irrelevant religious ideology
Keynes offered social democracy as an alternative to Marxism that was compatible with liberalism.
China remains a communist country run by the CCP. The leadership of the party has to take into account the hardliners, which is the military. The PLA is very likely to just take over if they don't like the way the leadership is headed. The leadership knows this.
China has the veneer of being liberal. It is not.
All men are created equal eh?
So Mohammed created muslims equal to christians? Then why does the quran say that infidels (non-muslims) are going to hell?
So Jesus created christians equal to jews? Then why does the bible say that nobody who doesnt accept jesus as their personal savior is going to burn in hell for eternity?
So yahweh created jews equal to muslims? Then why does the old testament and torah say that only jews are God's chosen people and only jews will be saved when the apocalypse comes?
This stuff is a joke, its just as crazy as believing in the metals aka worshipping gold. All humans are created equal in that we are all animals living on this random blue rock. The universe owes us nothing and certainly not freedom of speech or the right to carry an AR-15.
There is no Creator to give us anything, certainly not human legal rights. That's outdated and irrelevant religious ideology
With scientific reductionism having replaced the Great Chain of Being as the foundation of Western thought, the problem arises in political theory about how to ground rights, especially wrt liberal theories that are bound up in the conception of rights. The question becomes whether right are then relative and arbitrary, the result of cultural factors, or are there naturalistic ground that can be explained scientifically. That is, are rights constructs or do they have a natural basis?
No one denies that in modern society, rights are legal constructs. But it that all they are? Almost no one wants to agree to this since that is an admission of cultural relativity.
Presently, the foundational framework of Western liberal exceptionalism that results in the push for unipolarity based on Western liberal values is based on rights not being relative and merely normative but grounded in absolute truth as self-evident.
This means that other countries, be they Chinese, Russian, Islamic or whatever have to adopt a different culture based on a different set of values to join the unipolar world and participate in the "benefits" of neoliberal globalization.
Resistance to this is what the mulitplorism of BRICS and the rest of the emerging world is about. These people don't want to become Europeans and especially not Americans, whom those of more ancient cultures regard as upstarts. Even at the time the Greeks were founding Western civilization, most of Europe was running around in bear skins.
So this is not just some abstract philosophical debate about the foundations of rights.
Does China harbor an inferiority complex towards Western thought and culture?
China regards the West as an upstart that came late to civilization, whereas Chinese civilization was one of the earliest. The Chinese also are aware that historically they were the premier country until the industrial revolution and they intend to become the premier country again in due course. This is the plan and the Chinese people are excited at the prospect.
Tom-
There is no scientific or objective way to support the belief that we have natural rights. Everything is relative.
Its like accoutning and economics, its just the way it works. Ideology is irrelevant.
Do sharks have natural rights?
Monkeys?
eagles?
Of course not, because there is no such thing. Other animals dont have our notions of rights only because they dont have the mental capacity to invent them. Humans have that mental capacity but not because of any religious background, but instead due to evolution.
This isnt some philosophical debate any more than MMT descriptions of monetary operations are philosophical.
Tom-
"No one denies that in modern society, rights are legal constructs. But it that all they are? Almost no one wants to agree to this since that is an admission of cultural relativity."
And almost nobody wants to admit that the Govt can create an unlimited amount of its own IOUs aka currency because that would upset the status quo. But that doesnt make them right about the monetary ssytem and it doesnt make them right about natural rights.
Being unable to interact with the world the way it is instead of the way you want it to be is not a good reason to believe something.
Believers in America (and Western) exceptionalism and Western values are unwilling to go there, and they are deeply committed to imposing Western liberal values and American liberal (actually oligarchic) democracy on the rest of the world by force if necessary because freedom and absolute truth are equivalent. That is the dominant theme in the Zeitgeist at the moment. The dialectic is being driven by resistance to it, militarily if need be. This is not just the US and UK but also Europeans. It's really the basis of NATO.
So the world is on a collision course, with a big war becoming an increasing possibility as another "war to end all wars."
Being unable to interact with the world the way it is instead of the way you want it to be is not a good reason to believe something.
Generally preference lies at the basis of claims of self-evidence.
The different between naïve positions and critical one is that the foundations of naïve positions are unexamined while the foundations of critical ones are.
Most conventional political and economic theory is naïve.
Tom-
Good comments, not much that I can add to that.
We've come to the crux of our dialogue now....the is\ought dichotomy. You are writing about what the current political and cultural zeitgeist of the west believes ought to be the case.
Im simply describing what is the case.
"The different between naïve positions and critical one is that the foundations of naïve positions are unexamined while the foundations of critical ones are."
Brilliantly stated, I really like this turn a phrase.
The basis of "natural" premises, like "natural law" and "natural rights" generally devolve to self-evidence to avoid circular reasoning or infinite regress.
"Natural" is brought in as tool when the argument from authority, usually religious dogma, doesn't apply.
The 18th century Enlightenment and Age of Reason was substitution of science for religion. Political thinkers like Locke and economic thinkers like Smith wanted to draw a parallel between Newton's laws of nature and the "laws" that underly human behavior. They didn't try to write the equations themselves. That was left from later social scientists, for example, the neoclassical economists. This was deepened when Samuelson attempted to formalize economics and synthesize neoclassical economics and Keynesian.
Microfoundations in economics and social science is based on methodological individualism that assumes the ontological individualism of 18th century Enlightenment thinking without critically examining the assumptions but rather naively assuming self-evidence.
So modern liberalism in social, political and economic theory is built on a foundation of sand. The paradoxes that arise in liberal throught are indications of this, and they are either explained away or swept under the rug.
China remains a communist country run by the CCP. The leadership of the party has to take into account the hardliners, which is the military. The PLA is very likely to just take over if they don't like the way the leadership is headed. The leadership knows this.
The role of the military is to defend the state. If it's true that the 'hardliners' are all in the military, then the CCP is a paper tiger. It is the generals who are calling the shots. Really?
The PLA can go along with the plan, or do something stupid, like invading Taiwan. If the country were to head south economically, then they'd have to step in.
China has the veneer of being liberal. It is not.
So do we.
The PLA doesn't run the country but it takes seriously the task of preserving the gains of the socialist revolution, just like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The leadership cannot be perceived by the military as betraying the revolution or they risk a coup.
What happened during the liberalization of Russia sent a message to China or the danger of "shock therapy." It drove Russia into the ground and sacrificed many of the gains of the revolution. Putin finally stepped in and reversed it, for which he is a hero today. The Russian military has acknowledged its mistake in stepping back and is resolved not to make that mistake again.
China is unlikely to repeat that mistake, and the PLA is being vigilant to ensure it doesn't happen.
…. on natural rights
Some people believe humans have no natural rights. Some people believe they do. Both are believers – neither science nor religion can arbitrate. The reason why, is that it is a matter of consciousness. You either know or you don’t know: - that is why if it is true, it is better to know; and if it is not true, it is better to know. Humility then compels one to make the statement: ‘I do not know’. We do not understand the grounding and centring value of humility these days.
Kabir said consciousness arises from within the human heart, not the human mind (nor the atoms of science). From the human heart arises the desire to be content, the desire to be fulfilled. This is the engine that drives a human being. Mind can never be fulfilled because it is always restless, questioning, by its nature – it lives on vapour. The heart wants something that is real, substantial. If the desire for contentment arises from within, then the best place to look for it is within. Not in the mind – but within. Teaching a human being how to go inside, says Kabir, is Knowledge – real knowledge; because it brings a human being to a place within inside of themselves where they see themselves for the very first time, AND what has created them. They understand what it means to be human – much more than the animal body. Then belief is left behind, and knowing takes its place - they understand ‘excellence, gratitude, awareness, clarity and peace’ and their ‘sovereign right’. They understand what Life is. Believers are believers; the mind wanders ceaselessly, and speculates – ‘always’ says Kabir, Patanjali, Krishna, Tulsidas, Meher, Christ, Buddha, DK, the list goes on and on and Tom knows it better than all of us - ‘it is better to know’.
When the thirst that is inside of your heart becomes more real to you than everything going on in the world, and in your life, you are on your way – so says the above. That is what focus is - for the rest it is madness, or speculation. Mind is unfortunately, mostly proud and arrogant – it knows nothing of the realm of the heart. When we get tired of the mind, we dig a little deeper and begin to listen to our being.
When someone says that their rights are 'natural', I took it to mean that they were more willing to use violence to defend them. I thought their position was based on righteousness and not philosophy.
The army cannot run a country, Tom. "Defending the revolution" by killing a lot of folks is just an excuse for holding on to power.
They are as communist as apple pie.
jrbarch,
If people disagree on what is 'natural' then one cannot be sure that it is. Eating is natural, but arcane interpretation of rights are a matter for endless debate. Even if I were immortal, I would not partake.
The army doesn't have to kill a lot people to effect a coup, just remove the present leadership and replace with a different leadership. There are plenty of hardliners in the CCP as well as the PLA.
The way it would be done is that suddenly the leadership would change and the present leadership would announce a desire to retire. Or if there would be resistance or vindictiveness there would be corruption trials and the corruption would be revealed to the public.
It's quite simple to accomplish.
Jrbach
Hearts are an organ that pump blood that's it. Everything else your are talking about is the brain thanks to the laws of nature...the only natural that there is
"Natural rights" in an other social bullshit construct we teach ourself to ignore the uncomfortable truth that our social systems are not set in stone by divine law.
That's why we have come to accept slavery depending on context over the West in different time periods.
Rights are dictated by those in power, right now the interest is to support everything "private" ("freedom") and ignore all sort of coercive and non-physical violent behaviour the "have's" partake against the "have not's" with the excuse they are "free" (to starve). Everything else is just a bunch of elaborated excuses to justify the status quo.
In the end is all religion used "against the people, for the people", not much has changed in the last 5000 years.
The way it would be done is that suddenly the leadership would change and the present leadership would announce a desire to retire. Or if there would be resistance or vindictiveness there would be corruption trials and the corruption would be revealed to the public.
It's quite simple to accomplish.
Except that they won't. The current leadership has been successful and China is on the rise. It would surprise me to see any move on their part in the absence of a crisis.
What could the Russian military have done? The USSR underwent a slow decline, which culminated in a leader who essentially gave away the store. If Putin were to fumble the football, the military would be in a poor position to remedy an economic crisis.
I don't think that the Russian military or the Chinese military or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would permit a repeat of anything like a Gorbachev > Yeltsin > oligarchic rule fiasco or imposition of another round of shock doctrine in liberalization
Militaries are in a very good position to remedy an economic crisis. The PLA is a major owner of state corporations, for instance. They also control major media. Militaries are just not so good at promoting growth after a crisis. But they create the stability that is required for subsequent growth.
As long as the current leadership is successful, it has no worries. The US thinks that if the leadership is not successful then there will be regime change that brings in a liberal government acceptable to the US, that is, controllable by the US. I think that is wishful thinking not only in China but also in Russia. Forewarned is forearmed.
If the US did not want Russia to be a rival, they could have overseen their transition to capitalism more wisely. As for China, treating them as a trading partner is a good strategy. The more they are open for business, the better. Or goad them into invading Taiwan, or a smaller, more strategic island.
Military rule is a dead end game. What have North Korea, Egypt, and Myanmar done with their economies? It's a defensive crouch.
I think the most likely direction to look for a naturalistic foundation for right is toward biology and more specifically toward evolutionary theory.
As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shows us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. ... This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honored and practiced by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.
- Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871
Wikipedia/ Evolution and ethics
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith had speculated that humans are not only self-regarding but also other regarding.
Behavioral economist Vernon L. Smith further argued that Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations together encompassed:
"one behavioral axiom, 'the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another,' where the objects of trade I will interpret to include not only goods, but also gifts, assistance, and favors out of sympathy ... whether it is goods or favors that are exchanged, they bestow gains from trade that humans seek relentlessly in all social transactions. Thus, Adam Smith's single axiom, broadly interpreted ... is sufficient to characterize a major portion of the human social and cultural enterprise. It explains why human nature appears to be simultaneously self-regarding and other-regarding."[4]
Wikipedia/The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Military rule is a dead end game. What have North Korea, Egypt, and Myanmar done with their economies? It's a defensive crouch.
Militaries and security forces are the basis for national defense and domestic stability. They are the backstop for wherever kind of rule is in place. Their task is to impose and maintain order, without which a functional society is impossible. When things are stable, people forget this. Military and security leaders know that this is their task.
As far as NK does, they consider themselves on a wartime footing in that a peace treaty has never been signed. The Armistice Agreement of 1953 that ended the Korean Conflict was not a peace treaty. NK is not just being paranoid about all the war talk.
Myanmar is an undeveloped country basket case. As such it is, one among many.
Egypt was a relatively stable country under Mubarak for years. The shift at the time of the uprising that initiated democracy seriously destabilized an already polarized country, and the democratically elected government couldn't get on top of it. The military took over to restore order.
None of these cases is simple. Liberalizing through shock therapy and instituting democracy are unlikely to resolve the fundamental issues. Moreover, liberalizing through shock therapy and instituting democracy is really just neoliberal colonization and the so-called democracy that results is oligarchic. This is an oft-repeated pattern.
They have the task of raising the standard of living of their people. Clinging to power for the sake of being in power is not progress.
NK follows a doctrine of self-reliance, referred to as Juche. Credit is due to what they have accomplished, but it has not resulted in an appreciable advance in their standard of living. The people of North Korea continue to make sacrifices in service to a moribund ideology.
Myanmar's rulers, the Tatmadaw, do not care about the development of their country. They see themselves as the warrior class, for whom the rest of society must serve. Their idea of economics is to loot the country's natural resources.
Egypt was and remains a basket case. Yes, there is 'order' of the type commonly found in the Middle East. But what distinguishes it from myriad other basket cases that aren't ruled by their military? Military aid?
Short of a secret MMT boot camp for officers, I don't view the military as providing solutions to economic problems.
China has raised hundreds of millions of people up from poverty, and India aspires to do the same. I would think that this aspiration is universal in our species. The question is whether we/they have the competence to make it happen. Anything less leads to stagnation, and eventual decline.
If these endeavors are successful, and the standard of living improves for hundreds of millions if not a billion more people, will we hit a wall in terms of energy and resource utilization? Will we not have to become far more energy and resource efficient than our current level of technology allows for?
American especially and the other developed countries are very much concerned with a rising standard of living associated with greater prosperity, Thus the concern with growth as GPD per capita. This applies to the US in particular since it has seldom or never had to struggle with stability, order, and providing the population with vital resources the way most other countries have and undeveloped and emerging countries still do.
Europe and Japan are closer to that having been ravaged in wars and by war lordism previously. American escaped that as a new country built on the genocide of the indigenous population and the importation and breeding of African slaves. America also emerged from WWII unscathed and ready for a new round of growth.
The ROW not so much, since they have long been struggling with attaining stability and order and sufficient necessary resources like food. As a result this is their first concern. One reason for their relative position wrt the developed countries is colonialism and neocolonialism, where their purpose in the world economy is chiefly extraction.
Tom,
Darwin here: "look at them as our fellow-creatures"
How does Darwin logically square up terming us "creatures" when his theory is that we evolved?
rsp,
Bob said...
jrbarch,
If people disagree on what is 'natural' then one cannot be sure that it is. but arcane interpretation of rights are a matter for endless debate. Even if I were immortal, I would not partake.
Auburn Parks said...
Jrbach
Hearts are an organ that pump blood that's it. Everything else your are talking about is the brain thanks to the laws of nature...the only natural that there is
Bob, from the day I was born I had the courage for such a debate. Looking around, I am definitely not alone ….
Without inner peace, it is impossible to have world peace. [Dalai Lama]
Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart. [Confucius 500BC]
There’s only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving – and that’s your own self. [Aldous Huxley]
The quieter you become, the more you can hear. [Ram Dass]
The purpose of life is to increase the warm heart [Dalai Lama]
Pleasure comes from the outside. Happiness from within. [Remez Sasson]
No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it. We must learn to see the world anew. [Albert Einstein]
Love is wisdom’s law on earth. [Ingmar Bergman 1950]
What is essential is invisible to the eye. It is only with the heart that one can see clearly. [Antoine St Exupery 1930AD]
Inner peace creates outer peace. [Remez Sasson]
I have found that if you love life, life will love you back. [Arthur Rubenstein]
Gamble everything for love, if you are a true human being. [Rumi 1200AD]
Ask the heart the right question. You will get the right answer. [Prem Rawat]
All we are saying is give peace a chance. [John Lennon]
Self-knowledge is the best of all forms of knowledge; through it, one attains immortality. [The Upanishads 1500BC]
For where your treasure is, there also will be your heart. [Luke 12:34 100AD]
Only in the heart can one experience the divine presence of truth. [Kabir 1400]
And we are put on earth, a little space, so that we may learn to bear the beams of love. [William Blake 1800]
Life is a voyage that is homeward bound. [Herman Melville 1840]
I have walked this earth for thirty years, and, out of gratitude, want to leave some souvenir. [Van Gogh 1850]
Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside dreams; who looks within, awakens. [Carl Jung 1900]
Hi Auburn – people often refer to their ‘heart of hearts’ (without understanding what it is). Of course you know about this human heart thing already! :-) Personally, I know of over a million people on the planet right now, that have been taught how to sit down every day, and go inside for at least an hour, to get in touch with the heart. I have been practising this too, since 1979 – try doing that for 13,140 hours and get no result (?). Everyone is hypnotised by the politics and economics, but they are just aspects of a human being. Our existence is about the heart – love is important to people; we just don’t know how important yet. We want love to be perfect. When we do know, we will see that it is everything – the world is just a mirror of our consciousness.
In perennial wisdom, "heart" is used as a symbol what is called "sensibility" in English. It is extra-rational knowledge and it reaches its apex where love and knowledge are maximal and identical. This type of knowledge that transcends intellect and reasoning is called "knowledge of the heart." It is called "seeing with the eye of the heart" to underscore that it is experiential, a type of perception that is subtler than sense perception, that yields immediate knowledge, that is knowledge that is mediated neither by sense data, concepts or reasoning.
"The mind has a dual function, which I have explained at length in God Speaks. The first function is that of thinking. The impressions that lie dormant have to be worked out, and appear as thoughts. This thinking function of the mind is known to the Vedantists as mun [Hindi pronunciation, Sanskrit manas].
"The second function of the mind includes all feelings and emotions. This is called antakarana [literally “inner sense” in Sanskrit], which means the heart. So, what is known as the heart is actually the second functioning of the mind itself. The impressions called sanskaras are spent through both thinking and feeling. In the first functioning of the mind, are thoughts of all kinds. In the second functioning of the mind, that is the heart, are all feelings and desires — feelings of joy, pain, disappointment, happiness, shock — belong to this antakarana (heart)."
Meher Baba
in Bhau Kalchuri
Lord Meher,
Asheville, NC: Manifestation, Vol. 13. 1998, pp. 4455
"The entire universe is condensed in the body and the entire body in the Heart. Thus the Heart is the nucleus of the whole universe. This world is not other than the mind, the mind is not other than the Heart; that is the whole truth.
"The source is a point without any dimensions. It expands as the cosmos on the one hand and as Infinite bliss on the other. That point is the pivot. From it a single vasana [Skt. impression] starts and expands as the experiencer ('I'), the experience and the experienced (the world).
"To Rama who questioned Vasishta: `Which is that big mirror in which all these are mere reflections? What is the heart of all souls or creatures in this universe?' Vasishta replied: `All creatures in this universe have two kinds of hearts — one to be taken note of and the other ignored. Hear their respective traits: The one to be ignored is the physical organ called the heart which is situated in the chest as a part of the perishable body. The one to be taken note of is the Heart which is of the nature of consciousness. It is both inside and outside (us) and has neither an inside nor an outside.'"
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Gems from Bhagavan
IX, pp. 33-34
"The heart is the innermost man or spirit. Here are located self-awareness, the conscience, the idea of God and of one's complete dependence on Him, and all the eternal treasures of the spiritual life.... Where is the heart? Where sadness, joy, anger, and other emotions are felt, here is the heart. stand there with attention.... Stand in the heart, with the faith that God is also there, but how He is there do not speculate. Pray and entreat that in due time love for God may stir within you by His grace."
St. Theophan the Recluse
in George A. Maloney, S.J.
_Prayer of the Heart_
Notre Dame, Indiana: Ave Maria Press, 1981, p. 25
continued
continuation
"Our whole business then, Brethren, in this life is to heal this eye of the heart whereby God may be seen."
Augustine of Hippo
Sermon 38 on the New Testament, 5
"I saw my Lord with the eye of my heart, and I said: who art Thou? He said: Thou."
Mansur al Hallaj
Cited in René Guenon, Aperçus sur l'Initiation. Paris: Éditions Traditionalles, 1946, p. 219, quoted in Whitall N. Perry, A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986, p. 816.
"As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to all beings.
With good will for the entire cosmos,
cultivate a limitless heart:
Above, below, & all around,
unobstructed, without hostility or hate.
Whether standing, walking,
sitting, or lying down,
as long as one is alert,
one should be resolved on this mindfulness.
This is called a sublime abiding
here & now."
Buddha
The Khuddakapatha_ 9, Karaniya Metta Sutta
Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Bob, from the day I was born I had the courage for such a debate. Looking around, I am definitely not alone ….
Which debate are you referring to? The one that examines why some laws and rights are called 'natural'? I have no interest in that debate. For me, that is like debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
Courage? Please explain what courage has to do with wanting to have a debate. On some level these topics are of interest to you. What other reason would you have to want to make the effort to understand them? Curiosity?
You are curious to me. And so is Tom.
Is that a list of people who have influenced you? Who share your interests?
If so, then no one is alone. My list would include Carl Sagan. With over 7 billion people on Earth, the odds are likely that each list will be different.
I would list hummingbirds, sunshine and beauty as influences on my life. Things that are perhaps easier to relate to than books I have never read. I enjoy reading but there are far too many works for the human lifespan to absorb.
Here is a famous quote many of us have heard:
"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
I'm no Isaac Newton, and, like everyone, I don't have enough time. Like everyone, I'm standing at a buffet called life and choosing some items while passing on others. I can't eat it all and I'll never know what I missed. I've forgotten more than I've remembered.
You can talk about you, and I can talk about myself, and that would not be a debate. We can discuss all of the ways people harm others, and themselves. We could have a discussion that feels sterile and unsatisfying, or stumble upon one that doesn't. I know people who prefer discussions that are purely academic, and who debate solely for the experience of debating.
The impersonal is lower risk than the personal.
I forgot to mention, not that you don't already know... the buffet hands out stuff to you, whether you want it to or not.
Hi Bob – I am referring to the debate about existence: your existence, my existence; Existence, existing.
Why does it take courage to participate in this debate? Well, as you say, people’s lists differ – and we don’t want to bother people. Most are far too busy to stop and think about their existence. I too enjoy hummingbirds, sunshine and beauty. :-) And I think you have reached the nub of the human dilemma in quoting Newton.
In truth, every single human being that comes onto this planet stands upon the same seashore: - amusing themselves, entertaining, playing, working, talking, relating, debating; choosing amongst whatever the waves toss at them - the ones that read perennial wisdom and the ones that don’t; in whatever role you take on for yourself or script you write, extrovert or introvert – until a final wave comes and sweeps it all away, back into the ocean. None of it makes any sense, and an explanation is just an explanation. A belief is just a belief. A hope is just a hope; but hope is our shield.
I am curious about people, and I will often walk up to them on the seashore and say ‘Sister – brother, what do you want’? Whatever they want is fine by me, but I like it when it doesn’t involve hurting somebody else.
But my little responsibility to myself, and to the one who taught me and above (and I don’t care who that is –‘when the teacher is ready and the student ready, then teaching can take place’) is to say ‘Oh by the way, standing as you are on the seashore - check out the feeling that is in the heart’. Now people know what to do with their hunger, or thirst, or the mind’s quest for knowledge or power – but do not know what to do with the longing that comes from the heart. Mind doesn’t help; actually, mind hasn’t got a clue. Many people do not even discriminate between the heart and the mind; separate them out as it were. As little kids, they knew – but as adults they have forgotten how to learn and understand from the heart - forgotten how their heart can progress in understanding and experience, knowing, that gets passed on to the slow to understand mind. This is walking on one leg (if a duck has one leg it swims in circles)! So, caveat – only the heart can walk this path, it has to be real; the mind follows.
For me, the heart is no less than a door to the Infinite; – it makes sense of my seashore, my existence and Existence itself, and turns this seashore into a beautiful place. The only way for people to know this is to discover it for yourself - if you want to. The world goes on anyway. We each have seventy laps (on avg.) around the Sun.
And that, for me, is a human being – in amongst all of the noise and drama, trauma and fiasco, lies and hate, love in this world – that is a human being. For me, that is why we exist – that is our ‘nature’; our human potential. In essence, we are simple. For me ‘heart’ is a feeling, a perfume, a rope, a call, a thirst, an understanding; a knowing, a door, a commitment – and if you follow it, it leads to Being. We do not need a broker between ourselves and what is inside. We do need a little help. So that is why the debate about existence is interesting! Much of Tom’s quotes above, quite beautifully point to the same thing.
But everyone’s life belongs to them, their seashore, their existence – nobody is qualified to tell others what to do with it. I think you and Isaac are a lot more conscious than most Bob – at least you acknowledge where you are standing: - most people, their minds are washed and spun dry on the daily news cycle and have no map or clue as to where they are; if the persona they have constructed for themselves in the world falls apart, they think they have lost everything … :-) - a lesson in being truthful to being human. No matter what we want, I think the bottom line for all of us is simple - enjoy being alive, while it lasts; and giving each other a little elbow room would go a long way too!
So in my language maybe you didn’t have Isaac Newton’s mind Bob, but you have his heart.
Thank you jrbarch, I believe I understand your language a little better now. I view my heart as what I feel, where I am, living in the now, as if timeless, where my past holds no regret and my future carries no worries. It may be easier for me to live according to my heart because I have failed in those things that consume our daily lives. For instance, I failed at developing a career as I was never really interested in any of that. When I was younger I had more discipline, and parents and peers to whom I felt an obligation to make something of myself. Alas, my lack of ambition and laziness won out. That is what my mind tells me, and I'm fairly certain that is what other minds would admonish me for.
When I was 18 I worked with a man in his seventies. He had so many projects and never enough time to finish them all. We worked together on most of them. We were digging out a basement with hand shovels when he told me that we made a good team. And we did.
I went on to work easier jobs for more money, and found that I could no longer endure it. Part of it was due to office politics, part of it was because I had changed. Where I had once felt gratitude for having a job and income, I grew complacent and cynical. In the end, I came to the conclusion that it just wasn't worth it. Decades later I'm still in that frame of mind.
Being less industrious meant I had more time to spend at the seashore. More time to amuse myself. Immune to loneliness and immune to boredom, it's no great surprise how my life has played out.
People don't always mean to hurt others. Some are well intentioned but oblivious. Others take satisfaction in it. They usually try to hide it, but some don't bother. If you don't fear or care about the repercussions of being toxic, why hide it?
I don't know about love. People who say they love each other while tearing themselves apart. I suppose some people thrive on acrimony. I look at popular entertainment filled with aggression and violence and think, this is what people enjoy or this is what Hollywood thinks we enjoy.
Newton said: "We build too many walls and not enough bridges." I'd advise him to move to Nova Scotia. Fewer walls and fences, a decent number of bridges (a good number are narrow), and thousands of kilometers of seashore.
Being is reading a book and being transported to another place. Your sense of self temporarily cast aside. Aside from that, I do not know what my heart has learned in 17,700 days. More mileage, less baggage, I hope.
Your responsibility, as a teacher, is to convey what you have learned, in your own words. Your mind and your heart in unison. You're a lot better at this than say, Stephen Hawking.
Post a Comment