Imperialism is Capitalism

[Ecthy]

No no no, different levels of social interaction also come with their own rules. Unless you're some kind of autist who needs an overly simplified model of his environment.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Well you are an odd fellow. Take away political/economic interactions and there is nothing else left. All our social interactions fall into this category.

Errr...what?

My point is that in any social/political/economic system people tend to seek their own gratification (i.e. by accumulating power or wealth).

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Blake
Yes, both are systems of power accumulation which lead to suffering for everyone.

Eloquently put. But there is a problem with this, how do you define suffering?


Also assuming for a second that suffering was well defined: How can you be sure people participating in such systems aren’t just generating suffering for others, also would abstinence from such systems reduce suffering or would it lead to more of it. If that is the case then such systems despite being a source of suffering replace other emergent systems that produce more of it, ultimately making them entities that reduce suffering.

[KrazyHorse]

e.g.

Theocracy is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth). Democracy is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth). Feudalism is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth).

etc.

Your statement is meaningless.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Errr...what?

My point is that in any social/political/economic system people tend to seek their own gratification (i.e. by accumulating power or wealth).

And mine is that, this makes them fundamentally equivalent, the only possible way to categories them is according the how complex a system they can form.

[KrazyHorse]

So socialism=capitalism=anarchy=imperialism=...?

[KrazyHorse]

Are you seriously that stupid?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
e.g.

Theocracy is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth). Democracy is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth). Feudalism is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth).

etc.

Your statement is meaningless.

It is not, I am trying to point out to some that there is no real distinction between economy and politics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


And mine is that, this makes them fundamentally equivalent, the only possible way to categories them is according the how complex a system they can form.

that's stupid

[KrazyHorse]

So now your point has nothing to do with imperialism or capitalism? Rather it is that there is no easy distinction between politics and economics? That they're all social interactions bound by certain rules?

Why didn't you simply say that?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Errr...what?

My point is that in any social/political/economic system people tend to seek their own gratification (i.e. by accumulating sex, power, sex, wealth and/or sex).

Fixed.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So socialism=capitalism=anarchy=imperialism=...?

You completely missed what I said about emergent systems. And scales of complexity.


Let's say anarchy is a very simple system on a macro scale (It can be complex for the individuals). Like 0K it is impossible to realy reach, since there is never a complete absence of social interaction and groups. Such "perfect anarchy" could be called absolute anarchy .


What most people consider anarchy is in fact a drop to a much lower state of complexity of the system and the sudden increase of entropy perceived by the individual who was used to an ordered environment. It is a transitory state, since transition to more complex systems is unavoidable.




Now what this has to do with the thread title? Well is capitalism a transitory state wich will always bring about imperialism?

[Sandman]

I voted false. For every economically worthwhile empire, there's been an economically worthless one. German and Italian Africa, for example. You could argue that capitalists benefitted from these empires (armaments manufacters, rabble-rousing press barons), but the real beneficiaries were militarists who took some capitalists along for the ride. In any country with a halfway capitalist economy, some businessman is always going to benefit from economic misdirection.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Fixed.

Duh.

Reproduction and survival are our only purposes. Any systems we form, we form in hopes of securing those two.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


that's stupid

No that is stupid. All other categorizations are prone to cultural bias.