Skip to main content

View Diary: Saving the Earth is Not An Ego Trip (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus

    Evolution did not produce socialism, nor, for that matter, did it produce gunpowder, the spinning jenny, or the French language.  Cultural development did.

    But cultural development is dependent upon the mental workings of the human brain and human body.  Without the existence of the human brain and human body, human cultural development would not exist.  Therefore, if a social system, regardless of its goals or beliefs, is to be successful in maintaining its existence and expanding, it must take into account the biological needs of Homo Sapiens, whether those needs are physical (like food) or psychological (such as positive interaction).  Cultural development has its roots in evolutionary development.  There is actually a science that is trying to merge these points, of evolution and culture, but I can't remember what its called.  

    None of this is "my" decision to make, but then again I understand that saving the Earth is not an ego-trip.

    I really don't understand the point of that comment.  My intention was necessarily the you specifically, but rather the you in general ie - if the proposed argument accepts this point, then it MUST consider this additional point.  

    An economic system which has existed for the past three centuries (at least) to fortify the ownership of the global means of production (and its supporting rate of exploitation) on the part of a tiny minority of owners as opposed to the vast majority of working people requires a vast lobotomization of its historical richness if it is to be conceptually reduced to being "the individuals (sic) right to wealth collection."  First off, you have the conflation of the concrete idea of the means of production with the generality of "wealth," secondly you have an effacement of the history of the capitalist state, and so on...

    What you are discussing is some of the results of capitalism.  However, what I am talking about is the base assumption of capitalism, that is private ownership and control of methods to prouce wealth, which is very close to my point about "the individual's right to wealth collection."  Yes, this has a multitude of resulting consequences, some of which you highlighted, but my point was the basic tenets of capitalism, rather than its consequenes.  

    Which fully justifies why only a tiny minority of the human race actually gets to take advantage of its "selfishness" in terms of having been granted membership in an investor class or a landowning gentry, whereas the rest of us must work for a living (if we are indeed so lucky as to be granted a job!).

    I admit to being lost by what your point is here.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site