Capitalism doesn't need to die.
It needs to evolve to the point where ethics are as important as the dollar.
Capitalism doesn't need to die.
It needs to evolve to the point where ethics are as important as the dollar.
This os more a cultural/moral/ethical issue than a flaw on the economic system itself.
Capitalism will exist, no matter if people are ethical or not. And if people move from a non ethical stance to an ethical stance, it does not mean capitalism evolved. It means the mentality of that people evolved, and as consequence, every aspect of life will improve, including the economic system.
Could not have said it better myself, capitalism is not perfect but it is closer to human nature than anything else. The biggest problem is that we have a lawyer run system that wants more criminals to cycle through the system and any economic system will fail with too many dishonest people.
Capitalism is more than just America, so doubtful.
Engineering is not physical science, and normally not part of a liberal arts degree (which has been my statement all along).
Fucking is part of biology, biology could be described as applied chemistry, and chemistry could be seen as applied physics, and physics is sometimes seen as applied math. However, that doesn't mean that people who study math know all of that.
Similarly accounting is based on math - one could argue that it is applied math (and not only plus and minus, depreciation and valuation of illiquid assets is slightly more complicated), but people who study math normally don't learn accounting.
The 'applied' part hides that in order to apply the knowledge you need to learn the specific domain - including guidelines, tricks of the trade, etc; that is exactly what was listed as missing in Liberal Arts - based on your link.
Thus Engineering is normally not part of Liberal Arts - there exist programs with both, but they are normally called dual-track or "Liberal Arts and Engineering" indicating that Engineering isn't part of Liberal Arts.
Can we stop using opinion articles in tabloids while discussing historical matters?
where is a historical evidence - decree, documented speech, letter, article (Stalin had a lot of these on different topics, I assure you) that proves that?That was the my main point. The idea that socialism required different humans - and Stalin though Lysenko might have the key to understanding that.
No, it was caused mainly by Russian agricultural backwardness and agricultural overpopulation, that manifested itself once again during another "bad climate" year that happened during massive reforms (that needed to be performed anyways).Sorry about that, I agree - most famine in USSR was caused by socialism and lack of democracy - not Lysenko.
again, you have to prove it. Provide a historical research that supports your PoV.However, Lysenko may still have caused some famine: in particular in China during the Great Leap Forward (even bad theories can spread).
Socialism (as in the state owning the means of production) is neither needed nor desirable. The relation between that and communism is complicated since both words have multiple overlapping definitions.
However, redistribution of income, welfare systems - including education and healthcare, etc may be needed - but that is not socialism.
Calling everything socialism is just overblown rhetoric - primarily in the US (e.g. "socialized medicine").
- - - Updated - - -
When linking it is convenient to link to something that can be linked to. Books are generally not linkable - and Forbes isn't an example of tabloid journalism.
Can I thus assume you are denying Holodomor, i.e. the democide by famine in Ukraine early in USSR?
Or did you mean that the democide was necessary?
Seems it is a combination for you - denying the democide and thinking that class warfare against existing peasants (that contributed) was necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
However, arguing with democide deniers is generally not worth the time.
Last edited by Forogil; 2017-12-13 at 11:22 PM.
wha? This article is mostly about global warming dispute, has quite a short preamble about Lysenkovism, and doesn't contain a single reference to a scientific research.
Causes of whole-USSR famine are still disputed in scientific literature. There is nothing to deny here. I recommend you to read American agriculture researcher Mark Tauger. For example here: https://carlbeckpapers.pitt.edu/ojs/...cle/view/89/90Can I thus assume you are denying Holodomor, i.e. the democide by famine in Ukraine early in USSR?
See, it is easy to link a scientific source if you are familiar with topic and have done some research previously.
There is a huge bibliography, a lot of numbers and primary historical evidence sources.
ye, like I've expected, you haven't researched it beyond wiki and tabloids. This Wiki-article links Michael Lynch's work (this one "Lynch Michael. The People's Republic of China, 1949–76, 2008) that, supposedly, should give us a historical proof of Lysenkoism role in China's famine. But, in reality, it just states it without any analysis or linking a source. Here is a excerpt:Originally Posted by Forogil
Lysenkoism
Chinese scientists were greatly influenced by the theories of
Trofim Lysenko, the Soviet researcher whom Stalin had regarded
as the voice of scientific truth. Lysenko claimed to have developed
techniques that resulted in crops like rice, barley and wheat
yielding up to 16 times more food than under traditional
methods. It was later realised and admitted that Lysenko’s ideas
were worthless. His theories about producing such ‘super-crops’
were wholly fraudulent. But so strong was the influence of the
USSR in the early years of the PRC that the Chinese regarded
Lysenko as infallible.
A generation of Chinese researchers were trained in the notion
that Lysenko could do no wrong. A Beijing doctor recorded: ‘We
were told that the Soviets had discovered and invented
everything, even the aeroplane. We had to change textbooks and
rename things in Lysenko’s honour.’
Mao made Lysenkoism official policy in 1958 when he personally
drafted an eight-point agricultural ‘constitution’ based on the
theories of crop growth advanced by Lysenko and his Chinese
disciples, which farmers were forced to follow. The eight headings
were:
• the popularisation of new breeds and seeds
• close planting
• deep ploughing
• increased fertilisation
• innovation of farm tools
• improved field management
• pest control
• increased irrigation.
nothing that proofs the point.
This book isn't peer-reviewed, contains no references at all, and it is not a surprise, that no scientific work cites it (at least those are not indexed in google scholar).
PS. No one denies Mao's fuck-ups during agricultural reforms. But that wasn't a topic of our conversation.
Last edited by Keeponrage; 2017-12-12 at 09:35 AM.
Luckily, it can't die because that would literally end the world as we know it and millions will starve because without their income, they have zero to trade for food.
Plus, this far into globalisation anyone that produces can simply move to another country or continent, leaving only poverty and starvation behind.
No, it won't die out with any generation. It is the future of this planet and the human race.
Capitalism will continue to fund research for medicine, fund our technological advancements and is the future of space exploration.
It's not a perfect system by far, but it's the only system that keeps us going forward like it has done for the last centuries.
in the UK capitalism is on it's last legs, it will stay but it will be heavily regulated and we'll essentially have a socialist democracy. the 2017 GE proved this.
capitalism is great when there is capital to accrue, capital to invest, and capital to pass on to future generations. currently that capital does not exist in the UK, as such some capital controls need to be in place to make sure that capitalism continues to exist: rent controls, investment in infrastructure, investment into social programs (NHS, education, house building) etc.
Last edited by Floopa; 2017-12-12 at 01:00 PM.
You claimed it includes engineering - which is not the normal definition; because key parts of engineering are missing from the courses.
Instead there are dual-track Liberal Arts and Engineering. That is how 'and is normally used; people say "cats and dogs" - but not "dogs and golden retrievers", since golden retrievers are included among the dogs.
I haven't argued whether the degree is useful or not; only that the normal definition does not include engineering.
I haven't argued about that, because I generally care about the knowledge people acquire from the education - not the degree.
E.g. liberal arts is supposed to teach rhetoric and logic.
I don't care whether someone has a degree including that - I care whether they have acquired that knowledge and can apply it. I don't view excessive use of swear words in normal discourse a sign of effective rhetoric.
That you have repeatedly failed to show, and the definition you linked states that several parts of engineering are deliberately excluded from liberal arts - and instead there are several schools offering dual-track programs with degree in Liberal Arts and Engineering.
I assume that's why you argue so passionately about it.
As for the subject-line: No - it will not, capitalism is still going strong.
I like how the first two replies are no.
It will lose power and die with baby boomers because the next generations have nothing to pay with and therefore cannot fuel it.
What you're seeing now when you see wealth transfer isn't capitalism, it's bridge troll taxing, and it started with sin taxes on cigarettes. That's not capitalism, that's pay-or-die, and we're well into that.