Latest post of the previous page:
The substance of my argument is that, contrary to the rosy view of the 'invisible hand' faithful, there are things wrong with the way capitalism operates. I am arguing that we need to examine these faults honestly, because only when we have an agreement on this point, (ie whether or not these faults are endemic to the existing system) can we sensibly move on to discuss solutions.Wilson wrote:With respect, thundril, there's not much substance there. If you're simply saying that we should continue with capitalism, but work to correct its shortcomings, I agree with you.
How can you say there is 'not much substance' in the argument that modern capitalism is fundamentally harmful to the poorest in society? You may well disagree with the statement, but it's not insubstantial, is it?
How can you say there is 'not much substance' in the claim that there is a serious contradiction with a system that requires more and more consumption of goods in a world of rapidly depleting resources?
How can you possibly have interpreted my last contribution as a proposal that we should "simply . . continue with capitalism, but work to correct its shortcomings,.."?
I am saying that it is the working of capitalism itself that is driving these problems (of over-consumption, of dwindling resources, of conflict over control of the sources of the raw materials needed to produce the ever-increasing flood of 'stuff', and therefore of war and poverty in the countries where these raw materials are found).
I am proposing that part of the solution to this over-exploitation of 'resources', including people, is for us to consider ways in which we could reduce our consumption, without reducing our quality of life.
I am suggesting that, because we are intelligent, resourceful, imaginative, creative people, this change of behaviour would not be nearly as difficult as the 'consumption-machine' propagandists would have us believe,.
How is any of that 'insubstantial'?