........what i said is exactly what i wanted to say. anyway, like i said it is downright naive and arrogant to even be thinking along those lines...but i'd rather not drag on this argument further because clearly we have different definitions about superiority.
We may be superior in one respect but the other species are superior in some other respect. I mean you cannot compare. Our sense of smell and hearing is so poor almost every animal is better than us.
i think you need to contemplate the question 'is intelligence doing us more harm than good?' let me know then whether your opinion changes ..
In between the insanity, I'd just like to argue that capitalism does not work either in the long term...I am assuming work to mean a state of equilibrium within which we can exist. Has it worked better than other social structures? Yes. Has it worked? No. For the long term, you either need harmony or degenerate completely into the jungle and capitalism does neither (competition, though, is about the jungle). And to be kinder than zicky: The phrase "light years ahead" usually stems from another common phraze "miles ahead" and is correct because both measure distance and are used to describe differences (miles apart, miles ahead, miles behind etc. etc.)...it is just an extension. On the other hand, saying "years ahead" is not that common...It's not incorrect (phrazes rarely are) but I've only heard it being used when you know that evolution will take place (eg- Indian taste for movies is years behind most of the 1st world).
thank you!! i hope i didn't come across as very harsh though, it was just another of the many ways of making a point
Let me differ. Jungles have existed since the evolution of "organised life". Jungle rules have existed even before "organised life" - among bacteria and microbes Competition is nothing but a jungle rule - and has existed in Human society - whether civlization or even before that. We all still exist. Capitalism has been on since the advent of money (or you may say even before that - when barter system was there). Its workign still. BJR you are taking the meaning capitalism = what Europe or US is practicing right now. This is not capitalism. US and EUR follow capitlism with intervention from the Govt. Pure capitalism is what is know as "laissez-faire" concept. Pure capitlism was the reason why trade evolved over millenia of human growth. Pure capitalism is/was the reason why technology evolved.
I don't think we differ in that case...except that I don't know if you agree that pure capitalism is as nonsensical a notion as pure socialism. As per my understanding there wouldn't be a difference between anarchy and pure capitalism...is this correct or am I just confusing the two?
I find your rationalization quite shocking, to be honest. You're making sweeping generalizations and talking about the underpriveledged as if they are half-wits beyond help and that economic progress is impossible. If you think the poor are poor because they do not work (or vice versa), I suggest you think a little harder. If you think education does not make a difference or that giving people money does not help them, try it once....you don't have a lot to lose and if it helps them, maybe you'll have made a difference somewhere? Sure, it's a long process...what has that got to do with anything? Nobody is talking about creating a perfect world where everyone survives and is rewarded equally....but to think that nothing you do will help improve it is ridiculous.
i never said that they are half wits beyond help .. economic process is very much possible but to what extent.. ? i am not tlking about it..that every person who's poor is poor coz of his unwillingness to work..i said that there are many who are like that..and yes they are..! i am not talking about a utopian world..but what i mean to say is.. that helping the poor by the means with which we do is a slow process..by the time we see some good results ..many of them would simply die..! what India needs is a revolutionary change.. being slow does not help.. it has been more than 60 years since our independence..but do you really think that we are progressing as fast as we should? i am no where saying that we are doing no good by helping the poor masses..i am arguing about the correct way to do it..
At the same time, there can be no argument against the fact that consumption of resources is an individual choice...and that distribution of resources otherwise unnescessarily consumed would, no doubt, help sustain more of our race in a better way. And that a fairly large number of the more evolved forms of thought seem to agree that consumption is not the sole aim of their existence (again an individual choice). Also, let us not all pretend that we live by the laws of the jungle? It's a great argument, almost infallible except in its execution.
Then we agree on most things except the instrument of change...you are talking about change from the top down and I am talking about change from the bottom up. I think a change from the top down is definitely a better option...faster, more efficient and more powerful...yet improbable. The structure of democracy is designed beautifully....the people at the top rely on the people lower down to stay powerful and will do what they can to stay in power. If they genuinely believe that change in policy is a way for them to stay in power, they will do it...like they've down with reservations, minority quotas, waiving off farmer loans etc. etc. If they believe that a genuine empathy towards eradication of poverty exists, they will try to exploit it to stay on top. I believe that creation of this empathy is only theoretically possible. Blaming the government is fair yet unproductive. Can you rebel? Yes. Will you? Probably not. I know I will not...I am far too comfortable with my armchair debates to try and give them up. The other thing I can do is try and make a difference around me. I know I have already but I think haven't done enough. I'm not trying to do as much as I can...I am only trying to do as much as I want to. Even that is a whole lot better than to wait for a more efficient way. Who knows...if enough people start thinking the same way, we might even create this empathy that I spoke of.
the structure of democracy maybe beautiful..but the problem with it is that the people in the lower strata .. remain lower..and the ones in the sky ..only go higher..the rich gets richer and the poorer gets poorer..!
not necessarily the poor who work hard enough become rich, not wanting to quote specific examples but dhirubhai ambani wasnt exactly rich nor was bill gates both are among the richest in the world and india respectively, then we see numerous rich corporations filing for bankruptcy or their owners in jail or on streets. Who will work will earn. Who is the fitter will survive better.
I didn't say it was fair. I just said it was beautifully done. And the rich getting richer has little to do with democracy.
but we here are looking for a solution.. while in a democracy the poor are inevitable..for the rich..but the problem is that they are STILL POOR..!
check out the ratio friend.. how many of the poor actually make it to the top.? maybe one in a hundred or even less.. i am not saying here to make them a millionaire but i am arguing that at least they make a decent living for them to live their life with dignity and comfort..
Yes you are absolutely correct. Pure Capitalism = anarchy. But anarchy will never lead to disorder. Because in pure capitalism - the forces of economics and sociology will always come to an equilibrium (the equilibrium depends on the situation - and hence is dynamic). [Of course you may not like the way equilibrium is established in this - because it is an outcome of a highly competitive scenario, and hence the ppl who cannot "compete" will get eliminated] In non capitalism - there is no balance. Its is artificially created by the Govt/institutes. And thus when there is a change (and we know that there is always a change happening every instant), the artificial equilibrium breaks down. Why does one believe that pure capitalism is a nonsensical concept, the law of jungle a nonsensical concept, greed is a nonsensical concept - its because we have been taught that way. Why have we not been taught that competition is also a nonsensical concept? Competition is nothing but an outcome of the above three things only.
