more dialog: capitalism | climate

Bcc: FYI
Previous posting: dialog re/ climate change
Part 1: capitalism, elites, and democracy
rkm posted:

…I think it is a mistake to identify capitalism as ‘the’ enemy. Instead I suggest we need to identify elite rule as ‘the’ enemy…

William Bowles responded:


NOT capitalism? So who are the elites? Extraterrestrials? Come on Richard, there’s a global capitalist class, even the capitalists admit that.
Thanks for responding William. Marxism talks about ‘capitalist class’ vs. ‘working class’ and I question how relevant those class concepts are in today’s world. For example, I see no evidence for any kind of working class solidarity around anti-capitalism. Presumably Trump supporters are typical of ‘the working class’, but their demands are along the lines of ‘Restore the benefits of capitalist growth’, which is the subtext behind ‘Make America great again’. This might be seen as naive or wrong-headed, but it is not anti-capitalist.
As regards ‘who are the elites?’, I point to the central-banking dynasties. As I said:

At the top of the food chain – and decision-making pyramid – of the capitalist system (I think you would agree) are the central-banking dynasties.

Perhaps you don’t agree, but that’s how I see things. And I see no sense of solidarity between these elites and the the rest of the ‘capitalist class’. When the central bankers create bubbles and crashes, they don’t bemoan the stock brokers who jump out of windows, or the banks that fail, or the fate of Lehman Brothers. Instead, they use the engineered economic cycles to further concentrate wealth and power at the top of the pyramid. And I see no reason to assume that these elites have an inflexible loyalty to capitalism as a system. As I said:

They also know that growth cannot go on forever on a finite planet. They are not dummies and with all their think tanks they have a better perspective on the state of the world than anyone else. That’s why they launched the Club of Rome and came up with Limits to Growth.

All the evidence suggests that these elites are making preparations to dominate a post-growth, post-capitalist world. I’m not expecting you to agree with me William, but I do hope you now better understand my position.
Peter Meyer wrote:
Hi Richard,
In reply to William Bowles, you said:

rkm> From this perspective, I think it is a mistake to identify capitalism as ‘the’ enemy. Instead I suggest we need to identify elite rule as ‘the’ enemy – the one we must overcome if we are to have a sane world. It’s not about economics, it’s about governance. If real democracy can be established, we can choose our economic paradigms.

Peter> I agree with this, though I suspect that ‘real democracy’ will come about (if at all) only after the economic-political-financial collapse of most societies as a result of widespread nuclear war (with which psychopaths in the U.S. such as Bolton and Pompeo are constantly flirting).  The important thing then (after the human species recovers sufficiently from its near-death experience) will be to prevent (by whatever means is required) the re-emergence of fiat currencies, central banks and central-banking dynasties.
Peter, I have a hard time trying to imagine a positive post-apocalyptic scenario. To the extent society continues to operate, the one thing that would surely survive is the military chain-of-command, with control over food and other resources. Not much hope for a democratic renaissance there. And if we have only scattered survivors, I would anticipate a desperate struggle to survive, with most of our survival skills lost through urbanization and dependence on technology. More likely a Lord of the Flies scenario would emerge, or perhaps feuding warlords, rather than a flowering of democratic enlightenment. But who can really predict what would happen? Let’s hope we don’t find out.
Unfortunately, assuming society continues without such an apocalypse, I still don’t see much hope for the emergence of democratic self-governance. I haven’t even seen anyone present a viable vision of what self-governance might look like, other than my own not-so-humble attempts. See: Creating change.
As regards sensible economic systems, I wouldn’t start by banishing fiat currencies, market economies, or even central banking institutions. The problems we have experienced with these mechanisms arises from who has been controlling them, not with the effectiveness of the mechanisms themselves. We would need a whole different discussion if we want to delve into the topic of sensible economics, within the context of democratic self-governance.
Part 2: climate
Jackson Davis  wrote:

Dear Richard,

You are hopelessly naive and ill-informed. We are now in a period of unstoppable abrupt climate change leading to near term human extinction. You should face the reality that the human species, along with most of the species, will become extinct in the next few years. All that is left is planetary hospice.


It is obvious, Jackson, that you are very certain of your conclusions. So certain that I assume you would consider it a waste of your time to look at evidence presented by ‘climate change deniers’. I’ve seen that same kind of certainty, and disdain for contrary evidence, from many others. Indeed that kind of certainty is probably true of the majority of people these days. When I refer to contrary evidence with my liberal friends in California, they look at me like I’ve lost my senses.
This is a very unfortunate situation, given that the actual scientific evidence shows that CO2 has a negligible effect on climate, and that human activity makes only a negligible contribution to total CO2 levels. Furthermore, the long-term climate record shows that temperatures have been significantly higher than today’s levels within the past several thousand years, and that the times of higher temperature have been very favorable to agriculture and society generally. The climate record also shows that the overall temperature trend has been downward for the past 2,000 years, and that we are near the end of this interglacial period and the beginning of the natural steep decline into the next ice age. The record also shows that the past 200 years of warming has been entirely natural, a spike within the overall trend downwards.
Besides these scientific considerations, we also have the fact that the so-called climate experts have been lying about temperature data. Once again I recommend these two sources:
Sheri Nakken wrote:
we are headed into Grand Solar Minimum and cold – see:
Thanks Sheri. Casey bases his analysis on observations of solar behavior, and he is able to predict with considerable confidence that we will be facing rapid cooling over the next several decades. But he doesn’t concern himself with the longer-term climate records, as revealed by ice cores and other data. He anticipate some kind of ‘little ice age’ in our future, but doesn’t realize that we’re nearing the final end of this whole interglacial period.