Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sy Borg]

I don't see other systems being any more equitable.

The gimmicky term, "AmeriCapitalism" does not mean much with this list of countries that experience more wealth inequality than the US:

...

AmeriCapitalism isn't about "wealth inequality", or anything close. It describes the ideology that drives the American Empire, and much of the rest of the world. It is most useful as an aspect of ecology, or environmental awareness. 🌳 It describes the ideology that takes the Earth, pulverises it, and sieves out the tiny fragments of 'wealth', leaving the rest as a sort of 'slag heap'. The practical effect of AmeriCapitalism is consumption, on an ever-bigger scale. And as that scale exceeds the capacity of the Earth, it all falls apart. Continuous-growth cannot be sustained in a finite system.

That is not "AmeriCapitalism", which sounds like just another naff leftist term to undermine the west (while painting the east as innocent little angels, or better still, that most valued being to the Left - THE OPPRESSED. Meanwhile, China is building more than one coal fired power station today so it can satisfy the west's demand for "green" products and it's own demand for weapons.

What you are pinning on America (and no one else) with that title is, in fact, life. That is what the Earth does - parts of it are pulverised and used to form new structures.

There are eight billion people on Earth and that number is rising rapidly. There is not a thing that can be done to prevent the destruction of ecosystems with those numbers. Consider the speed of growth - the world's population doubled from 3.6 million to 8 billion since 1970. In 1920, there were one billion.

Strip mining and deforestation are acceptable wastes when you have a population of a billion people. That is not the case when there's eight billion. Our established systems are so huge, that it takes a long time to adjust. The developing world are currently busily destroying their nature to accommodate their rapidly rising numbers, and replacing them with coal fired power stations. This is not driven by the US but China's Belt & Road program, and these projects use old technology and approaches.

However, since I am more centrist that most here (seemingly) I am not apportioning blame for this, rather I am observing that systemic change is difficult. An ocean liner will take about a kilometre and several minutes to do a U-turn, while a car can perform a U-turn in seconds within about twelve metres. The momentum tends to be ignored in this age of treating reality as if it was all just words that can change in any way at any time.

[Lagayscienza]

Communism was as destructive of the environment as capitalism. And today, China is no more communist than the West. Neither China nor Russia could feed their people under communism. China realised that pure, brute communism, where nobody owed anything, just didn't work so they kept the name "communist" and changed over to capitalism, with the Communist Party still in charge of the Chinese capitalist economy and a dictator at the top ruling over it all.

And when Russia imploded under communism it, too, went capitalist and even, if only half-heartedly, tried democracy for a while, but then reverted back to dictatorship and kept the capitalism.

Now capitalism reigns supreme and China and Russia each have their own suite of billionaires.

But whilst both China and Russia were communist, America and the West were able to achieve world economic hegemony. However, that is now being challenged by capitalist China. So, whilst AmeriCapitalsm is not longer the world's economic powerhouse, capitalism itself isn't going anywhere.

A kinder, fairer and less destructive system of economic life would be nice but humanity can't seem to come up with one. Whether we can do so in time to prevent environmental catastrophe remains to be seen. With population at present levels, and still rising, things are not looking good. Unless we get population down, and smooth the sharp edges off capitalism, it is unlikely that we will be able turn the ship around and let nature heal and improve inequality within capitalist society.

So, with more or less the whole world now operating under capitalism, singling our the West as the environmental vandal is untrue and unfair. Capitalism is just life on earth doing what it does with us as the dominant species. If and when mother earth decides she's had enough, she'll just do what she always does and reset the system. And, as always, there will be winners and losers, and there'll be no point in us whinging about it. We will have done it to ourselves.

[Pattern-chaser]

AmeriCapitalism isn't about "wealth inequality", or anything close. It describes the ideology that drives the American Empire, and much of the rest of the world. It is most useful as an aspect of ecology, or environmental awareness. It describes the ideology that takes the Earth, pulverises it, and sieves out the tiny fragments of 'wealth', leaving the rest as a sort of 'slag heap'. The practical effect of AmeriCapitalism is consumption, on an ever-bigger scale. And as that scale exceeds the capacity of the Earth, it all falls apart. Continuous-growth cannot be sustained in a finite system.

That is not "AmeriCapitalism", which sounds like just another naff leftist term to undermine the west...

As far as I am aware, I coined the term myself, although I hope its meaning is clearer than you seem to find it. It is only a "naff leftist" term if I am a "naff leftist". I hope I am not. "Naff", that is. I'll happily accept "Leftist" as a description of my political position. I am a Socialist, in the sense of 'social-ist' or 'society-ist'.

What you are pinning on America (and no one else)...

Huh? Look:

AmeriCapitalism [...] describes the ideology that drives the American Empire, and much of the rest of the world.

[Sy Borg]

But there is one blame. Capitalism is just capitalism. Your anti-American angle gels nicely with your enthusiastic support of Hamas.

Do you hope to see the west fall? Do you want their borders dissolved? If not, what are you trying to do??

[Pattern-chaser]

But there is one blame. Capitalism is just capitalism. Your anti-American angle...

You misunderstand. This is not anti-American. It's just that there are many threads, or styles, of Capitalism in existence. I coined the term "AmeriCapitalism" to describe the particular flavour of Capitalism (and the economics that accompany it) that is championed, used, and spread, by the USA. I am only seeking clarity of expression here.

[amorphos_ii]

I don’t see why we all have to kneel to americans, nor to capitalism et al. Its a politic which is constantly in flux and the current form of capitalism is very different to victorian. The whole problem with any kind of politics is that they all have agendas, and not balance.

Protecting our children should be paramount and above the porn industry agendas and concerns. In fact I would ban everything porn in a heartbeat. Is that unbalanced? well not given that porn itself causes so many problems and so it is itself unbalanced. Why is it that you can hit women in porn or show rape, when it would be illegal or otherwise unethical and not acceptable outside of the industry.

[Sy Borg]

But there is one blame. Capitalism is just capitalism. Your anti-American angle...

You misunderstand. This is not anti-American. It's just that there are many threads, or styles, of Capitalism in existence. I coined the term "AmeriCapitalism" to describe the particular flavour of Capitalism (and the economics that accompany it) that is championed, used, and spread, by the USA. I am only seeking clarity of expression here.

Ok, the 1980s "greed is good" style of capitalism, though I think "modern capitalism" makes more sense and does not carry pejoratives (just as most of us think COVID is a better name than The China Virus, as some dubbed it). Has the world shifted from Turkapitalism to Brit Capitalism to Americapitalism? Or is it all just evolving capitalism?

I don't see any new problems, myself, at just one that's been obvious for a long time - hen corporations become large enough, they become ungovernable - or rather, government. They make the rules.

Consider that the East India Company became so large and powerful that Britain instituted the 1720 Bubble Act, not allowing any corporation to be formed without express permission by the Crown. It failed because it stifled economic growth, was difficult to enforce, and the markets found their way around the provisions until the Act was rendered powerless and pointless.

It's a matter of group selection applying to humanity. When you have enough large humans, some will band together to bring them the power to control others.

Interestingly, the much-hated corporations, blamed for humanity's ills, are not actually human. They are like the Ship of Theseus, with replaceable human components. That's why I think of corporations as the first example of AI - a corporation is far more powerful and knowledgeable than individuals an small groups, yet it is not human but an extension and reapplication of human minds.

My guess is that a process is occurring, not unlike the shift from single-celled colonies to eukaryotic organisms like plants and animals. The dividing line between colony and organism is indistinct, eg. bluebottles, pyrosomes and I think some human societies are in this transitional state to some extent.

The practical upshot as regards the thread, increasingly reality will matter less than "reality" as deemed by a controlling entity. For instance, in North Korea, when the people are told that Kim can perform superhuman feats, that will be the only narrative you ever hear, even though people will quietly think it's crazy.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is not anti-American. It's just that there are many threads, or styles, of Capitalism in existence. I coined the term "AmeriCapitalism" to describe the particular flavour of Capitalism (and the economics that accompany it) that is championed, used, and spread, by the USA. I am only seeking clarity of expression here.

Ok, the 1980s "greed is good" style of capitalism, though I think "modern capitalism" makes more sense and does not carry pejoratives...

"Greed is God"?

Perhaps, and yet China also practices its own flavour of Capitalism, very carefully overlaid on their rather authoritarian 'communism'. This too is "modern Capitalism". There are other examples too. But there is one flavour of Capitalism that predominates, and it is what I have dubbed "AmeriCapitalism". It's just a joined-up pair of words, like "Brangelina", that Americans in particular, favour. It's not the word that matters as much as what it describes.

This topic is about misinformation, so clarity of thought, and of expression, matter more than usual here, yes?

[Sy Borg]

This is not anti-American. It's just that there are many threads, or styles, of Capitalism in existence. I coined the term "AmeriCapitalism" to describe the particular flavour of Capitalism (and the economics that accompany it) that is championed, used, and spread, by the USA. I am only seeking clarity of expression here.

Ok, the 1980s "greed is good" style of capitalism, though I think "modern capitalism" makes more sense and does not carry pejoratives...

"Greed is God"? 😉

Perhaps, and yet China also practices its own flavour of Capitalism, very carefully overlaid on their rather authoritarian 'communism'. This too is "modern Capitalism". There are other examples too. But there is one flavour of Capitalism that predominates, and it is what I have dubbed "AmeriCapitalism". It's just a joined-up pair of words, like "Brangelina", that Americans in particular, favour. It's not the word that matters as much as what it describes.

This topic is about misinformation, so clarity of thought, and of expression, matter more than usual here, yes?

Yes, plenty of misinformation here. The only time I cracked down on non ad hominems or spam was during COVID, when I was concerned about legal jeopardy. Otherwise, I like to think that the forum is run "old school" - rather than censoring misinformation, ideally it is effectively debated.

[Mo_reese]

Free speech is a right per the US Constitution, however, does that right extend to “misinformation”? If not, who gets to decide on what is misinformation?

The US government and their cooperative media pushed misinformation on the public for years about the need to wage an illegal war against Iraq.

News program hosts Rachel Maddow and her opposite Tucker Carlson were each sued for libel (misinformation) and the court in each case ruled in their favor because the court claimed that the audiences for the shows knew that the hosts weren't providing news but entertainment (can misinformation be considered merely entertainment ??). Seems like this is a license to allow misinformation.

More recently two CNN hosts inaccurately accused US Representative Tlaib of making an anti-semitic statement when she challenged Michigan Attorney General of unfairly bringing charges against students that were protesting Israel's actions in Gaza when the AG hadn't brought charges for previous protests. The reporter that published the actual quote publicly corrected the CNN hosts stating Rep Tlaib never mentioned that the AG is Jewish. The CNN hosts were clearly not reporting facts but pushing misinformation supporting the governments position on the actions in Gaza.

So what can be done? Who gets to decide on what is misinformation? If Musk gets to decide on what is or isn't misinformation on his Twitter site, does CNN get to decide the same?

[Lagayscienza]

We live in an era of "alternative facts". The law needs to catch up so that when misinformation causes damage, perpetrators are punished. The need for freedom of speech on the one hand, and for protection from misinformation on the other, result in a balancing act. We get into trouble when we allow things to tip too far to either side. Perfect balance is not possible and so the law must always play catch-up.

[Sy Borg]

The polity and the mainstream media have been responsible for the lion's share of misinformation for the last half century. That's not to mention the huge amount of information politicians and news outlets have suppressed - that has since been exposed by social media. Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with the polity's and media's push to ban social media?

[JackDaydream]

The political control of information and information is becoming complex with so much reliance on media sites, especially with the use of artificial intelligence. On one hand, people have access to so much more but there are subtle levels of censorship. For example, certain ideas and viewpoints may be more hidden.

Even on this site, which is humans-only, it took me ages to find this thread because it is hidden. There is such a mass of information on the internet and media sites, that what people get to see allows for so much skewing of ideas and political agendas, amounting to misinformation.

I try not to read too much news on my phone because I get so much doom and gloom news popping up. It is hard to know what is the most factually 'true'. That is because there are so many perspectives and agendas. I find it hard to avoid conspiracy thinking at times, but even the ideas which may lead to this are filtered from those in significant influence, or the elite. What is shown and not shown is dependent on this level of control, with or without artificial intelligence. I do get depressed and demoralised by it all and there is a real danger that this will lead people into a nihilistic wasteland of powerlessness.

[Mo_reese]

The polity and the mainstream media have been responsible for the lion's share of misinformation for the last half century. That's not to mention the huge amount of information politicians and news outlets have suppressed - that has since been exposed by social media. Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with the polity's and media's push to ban social media?

I agree. Those that have governed in the US have had the luxury of a cooperative media for decades. The big money owns most all of the media and can easily control the messages. During the Iraq War, almost 100% of the media pushed propaganda justifying the war and kept the horrors out of the public eye. When anyone dared to expose atrocities, they were punished severely. Most of the US public were convinced that their government was doing what was necessary. The US destroyed Iraq, killing over 500,000 Iraqi's and displacing millions. Compare that to what is happening in Gaza. Social media had been showing atrocities on an hourly basis to the chagrin of the government, resulting in a majority of US citizens being against the actions of the government re. Gaza. Social media clearly the difference between the public's perception of Iraq vs. Gaza. To regain control the government must crack down on social media.

[Sy Borg]

The polity and the mainstream media have been responsible for the lion's share of misinformation for the last half century. That's not to mention the huge amount of information politicians and news outlets have suppressed - that has since been exposed by social media. Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with the polity's and media's push to ban social media?

I agree. Those that have governed in the US have had the luxury of a cooperative media for decades. The big money owns most all of the media and can easily control the messages. During the Iraq War, almost 100% of the media pushed propaganda justifying the war and kept the horrors out of the public eye. When anyone dared to expose atrocities, they were punished severely. Most of the US public were convinced that their government was doing what was necessary. The US destroyed Iraq, killing over 500,000 Iraqi's and displacing millions. Compare that to what is happening in Gaza. Social media had been showing atrocities on an hourly basis to the chagrin of the government, resulting in a majority of US citizens being against the actions of the government re. Gaza. Social media clearly the difference between the public's perception of Iraq vs. Gaza. To regain control the government must crack down on social media.

You know my view on Gaza - Hamas attacked and to the surprise of no one, especially Hamas leadership, Israel retaliated. And if Hamas is going to embed all of its military facilities amongst hospitals, schools and residential areas, then the aim is obviously to have lots of photos and footage of innocents being killed.

Hamas wants many thousands to die so they can parade the mangled corpses to the world in a claim for the moral high ground. Iran's/Hamas's end goal is the elimination of Israel. If they are successful, they will be like the Taliban, thus increasing the net amount of misery in this world.

Even so, I'd rather that there is a place where complaints - whatever complaints - can be freely aired like X than for such an arena to be banned or put under government control.