Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: A New Game In Town

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 1, 2011, 11:21 a.m. EST by Idaltu (662)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Capitalism requires consumption in order to be sustainable. In a sort of balanced system of numbers between the haves and have-nots it can flourish. It is really a strange economic system because eventually the population of the have-nots becomes so extreme that there is not enough people who have the resources to consume. And without consumption the system fails. I have no idea if the United States is at that point, but I suspect it is close. Eventually people (the have nots) reach a high enough level of social inequality that they remove the haves. This is sort of what happened in France (the French Revolution).

"The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside. Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights."


I have no doubt that it will eventually happen in the United States. It is not a question of "if" but rather "when".



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

When is now. OWS considers itself a revolution.

I agree capitalism requires consumption. A healthy economy also requires consumer confidence which we have very little. And a strong middle class, which we have not.

The middle class is the foundation and the lifeblood of our country. If the middle class is suffering and losing traction, we all suffer. Its the opposite of trickle down. The strain will continue to trickle up, putting more and more pressure on the upper middle and upper classes, until they begin losing traction too. Which results in the further socialization of our economy.

This country has serious problems. But I don't happen to agree that we need a revolution or any bloodshed to solve our problems.

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 10 years ago

I am not talking about what is needed to solve the problem. All I am saying is that historically we are approaching the same conditions which ignited the French Revolution. Whether we need it or not is up to the historians to decide.

In the US the aristocracy is composed of the elite wealthy class and they rule by handing out dictates to all three branches of the US government. But even stating it this way sort of removes the personal element. Those three branches of government are composed of people who accept money and power in exchange for maintaining the feudal system.

It is inevitable (at least according to the history books) that the have-nots eventually remove those in charge of maintaining the feudal system. I have no personal desire to see bloodshed. But the algebraic equation is self evident. If A=B and B=C then A=C. It happened before and unless there is divine intervention it is likely to occur again.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 10 years ago

I see what you mean. You're approaching it by saying what can we learn from history. I agree. I guess my mind automatically goes to what can we do to solve the problem.

And I agree with what you say about the elite ruling class.

When you say it is up to the historians to decide whether we need a revolution - I would suggest it is up to the people to decide. The historians will analyze it.

[-] 1 points by ilovecars (36) 10 years ago

First those who don't learn from history are doomed to replete it!++ like the french revolution++++ Idaltu's is questioning, since our present system doesn't seem to be sustainable, will it trigger a revolution , that will bring in a new world wide system- one that is based on human equality and human rights- +++++ Idaltu, its going to be beautiful++ training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

It happened in Greece long before that. The kings kept selling the grain to the phonecians and people got hungry. When they got just so hungry - no more kings.

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 10 years ago

What is truly amazing to me is the absurd denial that seems to be floating around the US. This isn't rocket science. Eventually the hungry do find a way to eat. Its called survival.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 10 years ago

we've gotten a lot more sophisticated with the application of the rule of law, and actual starvation isn't right in everyone's face - only about one sixth of the population is at or near poverty levels.

there is a huge belief system thing that needs to be shattered before we actually toss out the kings - physically.

but with the right kind of agitation, we should be able to get them out.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

The strange part is, no one called it "left wing" in those days.

It was considered justice.

Makes you wonder who came up with the metaphor.

[-] 1 points by usermap (8) 10 years ago

Richard Heinberg"s book --The End of Growth published 2011 proposes a startling diagnosis: humanity has reached a fundamental turning point in our economic history. The expansionary trajectory of industrial civilization is colliding with non-negotiable natural limits.

Richard Heinberg’s latest landmark work goes to the heart of the ongoing financial crisis, explaining how and why it occurred, and what we must do to avert the worst potential outcomes. Written in an engaging, highly readable style, it shows why growth is being blocked by three factors:

* Resource depletion,
* Environmental impacts, and
* Crushing levels of debt.

These converging limits will force us to re-evaluate cherished economic theories and to reinvent money and commerce.

The End of Growth "book"describes what policymakers, communities, and families can do to build a new economy that operates within Earth’s budget of energy and resources. We can thrive during the transition if we set goals that promote human and environmental well-being, rather than continuing to pursue the now-unattainable prize of ever-expanding GDP. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Paul Gilding's book the great disruption published 2011-
It’s time to stop just worrying about climate change, says Paul Gilding. We need instead to brace for impact because global crisis is no longer avoidable. This Great Disruption started in 2008, with spiking food and oil prices and dramatic ecological changes, such as the melting ice caps. It is not simply about fossil fuels and carbon footprints. We have come to the end of Economic Growth, Version 1.0, a world economy based on consumption and waste, where we lived beyond the means of our planet’s ecosystems and resources.

The Great Disruption offers a stark and unflinching look at the challenge humanity faces-yet also a deeply optimistic message. The coming decades will see loss, suffering, and conflict as our planetary overdraft is paid; however, they will also bring out the best humanity can offer: compassion, innovation, resilience, and adaptability. Gilding tells us how to fight-and win-what he calls The One Degree War to prevent catastrophic warming of the earth, and how to start today.

The crisis represents a rare chance to replace our addiction to growth with an ethic of sustainability, and it’s already happening. It’s also an unmatched business opportunity: Old industries will collapse while new companies will literally reshape our economy. In the aftermath of the Great Disruption, we will measure “growth” in a new way. It will mean not quantity of stuff but quality and happiness of life. Yes, there is life after shopping.

training web page http://tinyurl.com/7rvpv43

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

I have heard the argument that people are calling for a French Revolution or hinting at it with wily smiles as if threatening the guillotine. I disagree with it. This was a war between two houses with a lot of people that were used by both sides. This opened the door for a real SOB.

People like to refer to Thomas Jefferson and his call for a periodic revolution. What these people either conveniently forget or do not know is that he was all for it--until the French Revolution. People were murdered on heresay with no evidence. There is nothing romantic about the French Revolution and the power remained in the hands of the elite.

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 10 years ago

I have no idea what your are talking about..I never called it romantic or anything else. I simply pointed out the conditions we are sliding into. Of course the French Revolution was bloody..most revolutions get that way. And the boiling in the US will also be bloody...This is not a hint..I am simply pointing out the obvious.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

I didn't say that you did. :/

I have been listening to this argument for the past year. The French Revolution was a war between two elite factions. Heavily manipulated in various ways. One of my favorites was the attack on the fashion industry. It was not about underpaid peasants. This was many aristocratic women had tossed corsets and opted for "Roman" attire. This, of course, threatened the entire corset industry. So, they played the ultra conservative game to the hilt which would then force the women back into corsets. Revolutions are bloody but this was indiscriminate murder. So, it would be wise for people to rethink where they are headed.

Notice that there has been a concentrated effort in the past 5-10 years to attack liberals as if they were subhuman (mentally ill, etc). The more that people are manipulated into this way of thinking the easier that it is to kill them. We have evidence of how that game is played.