Capitalism and the Tragedy of the Commons

[Barb]

"The commons" isn't a construct of capitalism, it's one of the chief traits of collectivism.

Notice there's no "tragedy of private property".

We live in a common world, with depletable natural resources that we all rely on to live.

 

[Oddball]

Dontcha find it a bit odd that a culture like Japan, with so few of those resources available in their homeland, has not only survived but thrived?

Gee...How'd they pull that off?

 

[Barb]

Dontcha find it a bit odd that a culture like Japan, with so few of those resources available in their homeland, has not only survived but thrived?

Gee...How'd they pull that off?

We blew them up, then we rebuilt, and provided (and paid for) their defense because it was decided that they could not be trusted to do so responsibly themselves. No need to spend on military, we provided new and improved infrastructure, and viola! They could devote all their resources on (omg) community goods and economic development.

 

[Barb]

LOL, you think you can baffle us all with a mound of bullshit now? HAHHAAHHAA!

Well lets see if we can clear up some of it....

Your OP article.... Bullshit... Operates under a philosophical premise that is no more a reflection of reality than you are an honest and sincere poster.. We all know you are dishonest to say the least...

your articcle on socialism versus capitalism..... More bullshit.... Gives some kind of nonsensical twisted version a difference between the two fundamentally... THe real truth is socialism is a bankers government.. it is elitism at its most insidious and relies on bringing everyone else down to the same levels rather than lifting anyone else up.. Its about as "liberal" (as in classical liberal) as rush limbaugh...

It is not "philosophy" that the economy works within and relies on the global ecology.

 

[Bfgrn]

the conservative mind's parochial indoctrination takes over here, and a mental blockade is quickly constructed using a mixture of self preservation and self righteousness. It goes into a state of confusion and simplistic reasoning where other people in the world can be explained away using the counterclockwise/clockwise water swirl northern/southern hemisphere theory.

PAGING DOCTOR FREUD!

DOCTOR SIGMUND FREUD, PLEASE CALL YOUR OFFICE!!

Hey DUD, you need to ask daddy to part with some of his capital, and outfit you with the items you need to properly carry out your only function on this board. Have the butler to get these for you...

 

[HUGGY]

"The commons" isn't a construct of capitalism, it's one of the chief traits of collectivism.

Notice there's no "tragedy of private property".

The people that inhabit this planet world wide are under no obligation to recognise your particular political philosophy. The "comons" ar self evident. It is capitalism that although the highest horsepower of achievement is obligated to report in and justify its existance.

 

[Oddball]

Dontcha find it a bit odd that a culture like Japan, with so few of those resources available in their homeland, has not only survived but thrived?

Gee...How'd they pull that off?

We blew them up, then we rebuilt, and provided (and paid for) their defense because it was decided that they could not be trusted to do so responsibly themselves. No need to spend on military, we provided new and improved infrastructure, and viola! They could devote all their resources on (omg) community goods and economic development.

Um...I don't know if you were aware of it, but Japan had a thriving and very populous island nation far, far before WWII.

How'd they pull that off, with so few natural resources?

 

[Oddball]

the conservative mind's parochial indoctrination takes over here, and a mental blockade is quickly constructed using a mixture of self preservation and self righteousness. It goes into a state of confusion and simplistic reasoning where other people in the world can be explained away using the counterclockwise/clockwise water swirl northern/southern hemisphere theory.

PAGING DOCTOR FREUD!

DOCTOR SIGMUND FREUD, PLEASE CALL YOUR OFFICE!!

Hey DUD, you need to ask daddy to part with some of his capital, and outfit you with the items you need to properly carry out your only function on this board. Have the butler to get these for you...

And I've got a few for you:

 

[Barb]

Dontcha find it a bit odd that a culture like Japan, with so few of those resources available in their homeland, has not only survived but thrived?

Gee...How'd they pull that off?

We blew them up, then we rebuilt, and provided (and paid for) their defense because it was decided that they could not be trusted to do so responsibly themselves. No need to spend on military, we provided new and improved infrastructure, and viola! They could devote all their resources on (omg) community goods and economic development.

Um...I don't know if you were aware of it, but Japan had a thriving and very populous island nation far, far before WWII.

How'd they pull that off, with so few natural resources?

Dude, don't be a jerk on purpose. You specified "survived and thrived," which implies a more recent history.But ok I'll bite. Does imperialism ring any bells? What could not be achieved through international trade was had by international looting.
Golden lily investigation, The Japanese looting spree

 

[Bfgrn]

Dontcha find it a bit odd that a culture like Japan, with so few of those resources available in their homeland, has not only survived but thrived?

Gee...How'd they pull that off?

We blew them up, then we rebuilt, and provided (and paid for) their defense because it was decided that they could not be trusted to do so responsibly themselves. No need to spend on military, we provided new and improved infrastructure, and viola! They could devote all their resources on (omg) community goods and economic development.

Um...I don't know if you were aware of it, but Japan had a thriving and very populous island nation far, far before WWII.

How'd they pull that off, with so few natural resources?

Here's your word for the day Jethro..............Manchuria

 

[Bfgrn]

Socialism is sooooo much better

Russia - Environmental Problems

And this is just one study...there are hundreds more that all show just how bad socialism was for the environments of the Warsaw Pact nations. You guys are amazing... At least in a capatalist society the corporations can be compelled to do the right thing, try that in a country where they imprison or shoot you for speaking out. Fools.

Socialism? The Soviet Union was a communist country. The irony...the communists in Russia held the EXACT same beliefs as the right in America today..."ecocide" Because they are BOTH conservatives.

With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow and the Russian Federation escaped direct responsibility for some of the world's worst environmental devastation because many of the Soviet disaster sites were now in other countries. Since then, however, the gravity and complexity of threats to Russia's own environment have become clear. During the first years of transition and reform, Russia's response to those conditions was sporadic and often ineffectual.

Only in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a linkage identified between the increasingly poor state of human health and the destruction of ecosystems in Russia. When that linkage was established, a new word was coined to sum up the environmental record of the Soviet era--"ecocide."

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.

Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."

Communists defending Stalin were driven by Cognitive Dissonance. "The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance." They didn't want to hear any criticism, and would go out of their way to deny facts. The abrupt betrayal of ideals by Lenin and Marx left many socialists clinging to the Soviet Union even though they knew Stalin was a disaster. They called themselves Communist even though they espoused none of Stalin's viewpoints and very few of Lenin's revisionism. In Russia, Lenin remains a Hero of the Revolution. Despite having screwed things up in the first place, Stalin is revered by Communists for toppling the Third Reich.

Conservatives defending George W. Bush are in the same situation as Communists defending Stalin. Stalin was never a "socialist" and Bush was never a "compassionate conservative", but the conservatives just don't want to hear any criticism and will go out of their way to deny facts. The current construction of the conservative movement in the US descends through the anti-Communists during and after WWII, the George Wallace "America First" blue-collar workers, the racists that Wallace picked up that switched parties during Nixon's Southern Strategy, and the nascent libertarian movement championed by Barry Goldwater. Ronald Reagan's acceptance speech for Goldwater during the 1964 Republican National Convention laid out the insistence of a balanced budget: "There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States." And yet, like Lenin revising Marx, when Reagan was governor of California he didn't practice fiscal restraint. And when he was elected president in 1980 he did the exact opposite of his campaign promise and triple the deficit and there has been "no fiscal and economic stability" since his flip-flop. Fiscal restraint was never implemented.

Abrupt betrayal of ideals of Reagan when he got into power left many conservatives clinging to the Republican party even though they espoused none of Reagan's new policies. Despite screwing things up in the first place, Reagan remains a Hero of the Revolution and is revered by conservatives for toppling the Soviet Union.

Reagan isn't Lenin and Bush isn't Stalin, but the parallels are notable. George W. Bush, like Stalin, inherits a failed revolution that relies on a cult-like worship of his predecessors and a complete denial of the facts.

Let me repeat Wikipedia's quote. "Stalinism is a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste.... at the expense of the working class." This is the exact opposite of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what George W. Bush and the Republicans are working so hard for.

You need to take a poli sci class....or maybe a dozen or so. The Soviet Union was a Socialist Republic, it even said so in its name. A communist society has never existed in the history of the world save in very small communes...hence their name. No, The Soviet Union was a collectivist society as are all socialist countries. Every socialist country that has ever been has failed or is very close to doing so.

Socialism can not and will not work because eventually the people who produce the wealth that is then taken from them to give to the lazy bastards who choose not to work (please note I am talking about the ones who choose not to work, not the poor folks who can't...we as humans have a social contract to take care of them...that's what makes us human after all) decide "what the hell if those pricks aren't going to work then neither are we" and the country fails at that point.

And do you really think that the Bolshevik Revolution was better for the country than the Tsarist regime? I think 105 million dead people (from Stalins various pogroms) over a period of 30 years would not share your perspective.

I am beginning to see a consistent pattern to your narrative. It is either total denial or you live in some self-created alternate universe. The 'truth' is socialism has never been successfully tried in any major country. It's ironic and revealing that you mention 'it even said so in its name.' 'Words' are one of the obstacles the conservative mind can't decipher. Like I said to another 'conservative', if we follow that kind of 'logic', all Martin Luther King Jr. needed to do to end discrimination against blacks was to say "I am white"

You espouse a greater narrative and propaganda that is consistently coming from the right these days. It started around 1994 with Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich's Contract with America that just doesn't square with critical thinking, reality or rational human beings.

You want to lecture me that Democrats are the same as Republicans on environmental issues. Yet you claim to be an environmentalist. If you were an environmentalist, you'd know that is a ball faced lie. If you were an environmentalist, you'd be aware of the League of Conservation Voters and their Environmental Scorecard that ranks of every Congressman and Senator in Washington on environmental issues since 1971. The difference between Democrats and Republicans on environmental issues is VAST.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Critical thinking and the real world...that is EXACTLY my point. But, THAT is where the conservative mind is totally incapable of comprehension. The conservative mind cannot see anything from a perspective that is not based on self.

We've reached point in every conversation about mankind where the conservative mind can never get past three major obstacles: theory, words and parochial indoctrination.

Words...if we follow your word bound 'critical thinking', it only matters what words you use to call yourself and ignore what you actually DO. following your logic, all Martin Luther King Jr. had to do to end discrimination against blacks is to simply say "I am white"

I've had this conversation before. And I have never been able to get a conservative mind to even comprehend a tiny sliver of the real critical thinking and clear understanding of reality required to get past this point.

The conservative mind's parochial indoctrination takes over here, and a mental blockade is quickly constructed using a mixture of self preservation and self righteousness. It goes into a state of confusion and simplistic reasoning where other people in the world can be explained away using the counterclockwise/clockwise water swirl northern/southern hemisphere theory.

Let's try this: You describe for me what a conservative in Russia looks like. What does he believe. What values, theories, traditions, orthodoxy does he want to 'conserve'?

This requires critical thinking, let's see if you are up to it.

You respond to the lack of critical thinking skills in others by making a fool of yourself? That is certainly one approach. I prefer to pound away with facts and logic in the knowledge that if I cannot get through to the person I am talking to, it is at least possible that I will get through to those who are following the debate.

I wouldn't know what a conservative in Russia would look like, I am not defending conservatives or conservative, I am defending liberalism in its classical meaning, to be free of an oppressive state. Whatever values a conservative in the USSR would want to conserve, I oppose them, so define them yourself, and stop trying to stuff me into a box. You will find that you will make yourself look more intelligent simply by not making assumptions about your opponent.

 

[HUGGY]

An argument Capitalism vrs Communism is a morons retreat.

Everyone that can read and has a memory more evolved than a fruit fly knows communism doesnot work in groups of more than a hundred or so.

Equally most know that captalism is preditory and consumes everything availed to it to the detriment of all who are not a part of the ownership or employ of the companies or corporations that survive by gobbling up everything else.

The truth is that they both fail in their purest forms.

Communism by the weight of trying to provide for all need......

Capitalism by consuming all resource and concentrating all power and wealthin the hands of a very few.

Pure Capitalism is every bit as vile and wrong as pure communism.

 

[Bfgrn]

An argument Capitalism vrs Communism is a morons retreat.

Everyone that can read and has a memory more evolved than a fruit fly knows communism doesnot work in groups of more than a hundred or so.

Equally most know that captalism is preditory and consumes everything availed to it to the detriment of all who are not a part of the ownership or employ of the companies or corporations that survive by gobbling up everything else.

The truth is that they both fail in their purest forms.

Communism by the weight of trying to provide for all need......

Capitalism by consuming all resource and concentrating all power and wealthin the hands of a very few.

Pure Capitalism is every bit as vile and wrong as pure communism.

I agree Huggy, that's exactly why I say that I have witnessed 2 failed revolutions of ideology in my lifetime, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Reagan Revolution. Both failed miserably.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ignoring a person who actually debates you on the merits of your argument, is that your new tactic to not lose?

 

[Bfgrn]

Critical thinking and the real world...that is EXACTLY my point. But, THAT is where the conservative mind is totally incapable of comprehension. The conservative mind cannot see anything from a perspective that is not based on self.

We've reached point in every conversation about mankind where the conservative mind can never get past three major obstacles: theory, words and parochial indoctrination.

Words...if we follow your word bound 'critical thinking', it only matters what words you use to call yourself and ignore what you actually DO. following your logic, all Martin Luther King Jr. had to do to end discrimination against blacks is to simply say "I am white"

I've had this conversation before. And I have never been able to get a conservative mind to even comprehend a tiny sliver of the real critical thinking and clear understanding of reality required to get past this point.

The conservative mind's parochial indoctrination takes over here, and a mental blockade is quickly constructed using a mixture of self preservation and self righteousness. It goes into a state of confusion and simplistic reasoning where other people in the world can be explained away using the counterclockwise/clockwise water swirl northern/southern hemisphere theory.

Let's try this: You describe for me what a conservative in Russia looks like. What does he believe. What values, theories, traditions, orthodoxy does he want to 'conserve'?

This requires critical thinking, let's see if you are up to it.

You respond to the lack of critical thinking skills in others by making a fool of yourself? That is certainly one approach. I prefer to pound away with facts and logic in the knowledge that if I cannot get through to the person I am talking to, it is at least possible that I will get through to those who are following the debate.

I wouldn't know what a conservative in Russia would look like, I am not defending conservatives or conservative, I am defending liberalism in its classical meaning, to be free of an oppressive state. Whatever values a conservative in the USSR would want to conserve, I oppose them, so define them yourself, and stop trying to stuff me into a box. You will find that you will make yourself look more intelligent simply by not making assumptions about your opponent.

I don't care if you 'call' yourself a classic Greek God. The study you posted doesn't abate the theft of the commons we face today. Your article makes a valid point in relation to Garrett Hardin's 'tragedy of the commons' where all the players are equal, accessible, live and breath and in the community that is effected. But the tragedy of the commons we face today is not being perpetrated by a neighboring 'herdsman'. Communication sounds great. Maybe we can approach corporate property and air our gripes to the guy in the guard house? But maybe if we are really resolute and adamant that we must 'communicate' with the main 'herdsman', we may be doing our communicating with a phone call, the one the police allow you when they take you into custody.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An argument Capitalism vrs Communism is a morons retreat.

Everyone that can read and has a memory more evolved than a fruit fly knows communism doesnot work in groups of more than a hundred or so.

Equally most know that captalism is preditory and consumes everything availed to it to the detriment of all who are not a part of the ownership or employ of the companies or corporations that survive by gobbling up everything else.

The truth is that they both fail in their purest forms.

Communism by the weight of trying to provide for all need......

Capitalism by consuming all resource and concentrating all power and wealthin the hands of a very few.

Pure Capitalism is every bit as vile and wrong as pure communism.

I agree Huggy, that's exactly why I say that I have witnessed 2 failed revolutions of ideology in my lifetime, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Reagan Revolution. Both failed miserably.

You witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't care if you 'call' yourself a classic Greek God. The study you posted doesn't abate the theft of the commons we face today. Your article makes a valid point in relation to Garrett Hardin's 'tragedy of the commons' where all the players are equal, accessible, live and breath and in the community that is effected. But the tragedy of the commons we face today is not being perpetrated by a neighboring 'herdsman'. Communication sounds great. Maybe we can approach corporate property and air our gripes to the guy in the guard house? But maybe if we are really resolute and adamant that we must 'communicate' with the main 'herdsman', we may be doing our communicating with a phone call, the one the police allow you when they take you into custody.

The study I posted refutes your OP, which is all it needs to do. You have since tried to insinuate that I am a conservative lackey, and demanded that I define a conservative in Russia and his desires. Why was that? Perhaps because you know deep down that I am right, and your position is indefensible.

You claim that we are now facing the problem described in the OP because corporate greed is ruining our commons, without explaining what you mean by the term commons.

I fail to see how that is possible because currently all commons I can identify is held under government control and regulation, making it impossible for anyone to actually discuss anything because the decisions about how it is going to be used has already been made, despite the fact that conditions surrounding those regulations have changed.

If you are truly capable of discussing anything beyond a sound bite, then prove it and show me where I am wrong.

 

[Oddball]

Right wing pea brain!!...Right wing pea brain!!...Right wing pea brain!!...Right wing pea brain!!...

RAAAAAAAAAAAK!!!

 

[HUGGY]

An argument Capitalism vrs Communism is a morons retreat.

Everyone that can read and has a memory more evolved than a fruit fly knows communism doesnot work in groups of more than a hundred or so.

Equally most know that captalism is preditory and consumes everything availed to it to the detriment of all who are not a part of the ownership or employ of the companies or corporations that survive by gobbling up everything else.

The truth is that they both fail in their purest forms.

Communism by the weight of trying to provide for all need......

Capitalism by consuming all resource and concentrating all power and wealthin the hands of a very few.

Pure Capitalism is every bit as vile and wrong as pure communism.

I agree Huggy, that's exactly why I say that I have witnessed 2 failed revolutions of ideology in my lifetime, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Reagan Revolution. Both failed miserably.

You witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution?

Thank GGGAAAAWWWWDDDD!!!!!! I'm not the oldest ************ on this site!