Knight,
All economic systems look good on paper - socialism and capitalism are both fantastic models of production and exhange. Its when people get involved with that rascally self interest that things fall apart. Extreme self interest - greed - allows for the development of the pyramid in both systems. It turns capitalism into a free-for-all where starvation and poverty are called freedom, and dignity and humanitarian sentiment are valued in relation to their neutral impact on profit margins. Socialism outright rejects the necessity of poverty and starvation, but greed at the top can lead to them anyway - and the people are FORCED to call them freedom. What is it about our nature as a species that does this? What does that say about us as a collective? Can we artificially develop mechanisms to prevent self-interest from derailing either system, while at the same time ensuring, at the very least, those rights enumerated in the first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution?
Also, keep in mind that the so-called "greatest generation" did not come back to "spread the wealth," they came back to accumulate it. Nothing like a great depression and the bloodiest global conflict in recorded human history to make a man want a new stove, ten children, and that fabulous patch of grass out in front of that new house, eh? It was their quest for affluence - what Marx described as the endless condition of the beourgious - that drove the post-war economy, not a humanitarian desire to spread the wealth. The latter would have been dismissed as "Commie talk" anyway. And, despite their massive consumption, it was the GI Bill that ultimately fixed the U.S. economy, not the New Deal, WWII, or the rapacious consumption of the 1950s.
Adam,
Welcome to the thread! I tend to agree with those who argue that a one world government is not necessary - and I like the notion of a confederated structure over some sort of formal, sovereignty dispensing union. The species is too culturally disparite in the present age for such a structure to exist anyway, as you pointed out in your post. We all know how smashingly successful the U.N. turned out, right? Many will argue for such a global superstructure in the name of peace, neglecting the fact that sometimes there are things worth fighting for. I guess the question I am seeking an answer to is not so much "is a one world government necessary," as it is "is a one world government a natural stage in the evolution of a spiritual, sentient species?" Under current paradigms, it would lead to the further enslavement of the many for the benefit of the very, very few. By the way, I too think the "sheep" thing has to stop - such labels smack of the very elitist pretensiousness that has turned this world to shxt, and I never fail to see the sad irony behind the use of the term by the so-called "enlightened."
I do not believe that a shift in human thinking - from linear to cyclical - will reduce the amount of bloodshed we as a species create among ourselves. All Native American cultures in North and South America - especially the Mayans - held to the cyclical worldview. Warfare became highly ritualized - often treated as sacred - but was not eliminated.
MMe M,
How many bison were wondering around northern Georgia in 1830? Are all the Indians dead? Do you really idealize a man who kills other men because of personal, verbal insults directed to his wife?
You must clarify, but I thank you for your thoughts.
This thread has really seen a big boost in quality in the last couple of pages, and remains a refuge for civility - for that I want to take one more sentence and thank you all.