Capitalism will last as long as core countries have surplus energy and the ability to use debt to fake growth and maintain the welfare state. Shale oil covered for the peak of conventional oil after the GFC 2008 and depends on a breakeven oil price of $60-80/barrel. Lars Larsen's analysis of the Land Export Model and Charles Hall the Father of EROI calculations says 2027-2032 is the critical timeframe. Europe's grid failure apppears to be caused by inertia problems from inverters vs. turbines. Simon Michaux analysis for building out just the 1st generation of renewables is stark and keep in mind that on-demand backup is necessary for restarting the grid and covering for atmospheric anomalies. The best bet is to create some kind of safety net or a network of coops, legal campgrounds and food breadbaskets that value volunteer labor as in-kind trade for food, shelter and durable goods created locally. The other solutions rely on the state capitalism model with adequate surplus, cheap credit and functioning global trade. Those days are over hence we have a troll/heel/stooge dismantling neoliberalism and popping the debt bubble supported by tech oligarchs trying to roll out a digital panopticon biosecurity surveillance state.
I think you're making up your own definitions, here.
Certainly, civilization exists — at least in part — without universal rights. Consider despotic civilizations throughout history, where great cities were built on the backs of slaves, for example.
Wikipedia says, "A civilization is any complex society characterized by the development of the state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic systems of communication beyond signed or spoken languages."
No mention of "rights".
I don't have any problem with you fantasizing about your ideals. Just don't abuse well-defined words to do so, please.
Even the ages-old Indian civilization that Gandhi wished western nations would adopt and accept included abuse of "rights", as you define them.
The US Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) includes the right of persons to "life, liberty, or property". Boy, the present administration is pursuing that third "right" with vengeance!
I could respect your opinions much more if preceded with "I think" rather than stating them as facts without backing in either authoritative sources or the vernacular.
There are lots of definitions of those things, but some work better than others to clarify what we need the words to do for us. The foundation of civilization is reciprocity. Before that there is always someone left out, fallen through the cracks and that person has the right, if rights are to mean anything at all, to defend themselves against that system. There has never been civilization at scale bc there has never been reciprocity at scale, much less sustainability. #degrowth
The foundation of huter-gatherer tribal life is closer to reciprocity.
I would say the foundation of civilization is hierarchy and capitalism.
Things are not "exchanged for mutual benefit", rather the benefits accrue up the hierarchy. Those who control capital always derive more benefit from exchanges — the exchanges are not "mutual".
Again, maybe getting into the finer points of definitions, but I think of "egalitarianism" when I think of reciprocity or mutual exchanges.
If an exchange is unequal, is it still reciprocal?
The kind of thing we have today is not civilized. It's just a more complicated version of the exact same might-makes-right state of nature we've always had.
I may be wrong, but couldn’t you both be using the word ‘rights’ in different ways - each of which are valid within their context?
Some people speak of rights as things which we should have the natural or moral ‘right’ (ability) to be able to choose to do without interference - those things which we should be free to have the choice to do - no matter what anyone else decides.
Others speak of rights as those customary or legal ‘rights’ (permissions) granted (or honoured) by and protected by a state and / or law (& thus could potentially be forbidden by such a state).
Sometimes these conceptions of rights overlap, sometimes they conflict, but the dictionary allows for both kinds:
Chambers Dictionary: right adj 18 socially acceptable • know all the right people. noun 1 (often rights) a power, privilege, title, etc that someone may claim legally or that is morally due to them. 2 (often rights) a just or legal claim to something. 3 fairness; truth; justice. 4 that which is correct, good or just • the rights and wrongs of the case.
Likewise with the word ‘civilisation’ which can mean an organised civil state-based society, or to a group or area which is civilised - in which people are ‘civil’ to each other.
Is there still a fundamental difference of opinion after taking this into account?
I agree as far the concept of 'legal' 'rights' goes - I'm just acknowledging that in the artificial hierarchal systems we live under this is sometimes how the term is used (or misused), even if it is just used that way to maintain systems of oppression.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jdieu7466r9hdv38/p/preview-a-mistake-of-matter?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5odzap
I write about all these things as well from my perspective of relative homelessness, I live in a tent at the moment...nice piece, thanks!
Capitalism will last as long as core countries have surplus energy and the ability to use debt to fake growth and maintain the welfare state. Shale oil covered for the peak of conventional oil after the GFC 2008 and depends on a breakeven oil price of $60-80/barrel. Lars Larsen's analysis of the Land Export Model and Charles Hall the Father of EROI calculations says 2027-2032 is the critical timeframe. Europe's grid failure apppears to be caused by inertia problems from inverters vs. turbines. Simon Michaux analysis for building out just the 1st generation of renewables is stark and keep in mind that on-demand backup is necessary for restarting the grid and covering for atmospheric anomalies. The best bet is to create some kind of safety net or a network of coops, legal campgrounds and food breadbaskets that value volunteer labor as in-kind trade for food, shelter and durable goods created locally. The other solutions rely on the state capitalism model with adequate surplus, cheap credit and functioning global trade. Those days are over hence we have a troll/heel/stooge dismantling neoliberalism and popping the debt bubble supported by tech oligarchs trying to roll out a digital panopticon biosecurity surveillance state.
There's no such thing as an abandoned building, there are only buildings some people won't let other people live in.
Everyone has the right to wander the Earth freely and settle anywhere anyone else can settle. Enclosure was, and remains, a crime against humanity.
"… a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished." — Göthe
"Rights" are just things that we make up to reflect our internal ideal world.
"I think it would be a good idea." — Gandhi, upon being asked by a reporter, "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
Rights are a minimum level of reciprocity necessary to enable civilization.
I think you're making up your own definitions, here.
Certainly, civilization exists — at least in part — without universal rights. Consider despotic civilizations throughout history, where great cities were built on the backs of slaves, for example.
Wikipedia says, "A civilization is any complex society characterized by the development of the state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic systems of communication beyond signed or spoken languages."
No mention of "rights".
I don't have any problem with you fantasizing about your ideals. Just don't abuse well-defined words to do so, please.
Even the ages-old Indian civilization that Gandhi wished western nations would adopt and accept included abuse of "rights", as you define them.
The US Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) includes the right of persons to "life, liberty, or property". Boy, the present administration is pursuing that third "right" with vengeance!
I could respect your opinions much more if preceded with "I think" rather than stating them as facts without backing in either authoritative sources or the vernacular.
There are lots of definitions of those things, but some work better than others to clarify what we need the words to do for us. The foundation of civilization is reciprocity. Before that there is always someone left out, fallen through the cracks and that person has the right, if rights are to mean anything at all, to defend themselves against that system. There has never been civilization at scale bc there has never been reciprocity at scale, much less sustainability. #degrowth
"The foundation of civilization is reciprocity."
I would say the opposite!
The foundation of huter-gatherer tribal life is closer to reciprocity.
I would say the foundation of civilization is hierarchy and capitalism.
Things are not "exchanged for mutual benefit", rather the benefits accrue up the hierarchy. Those who control capital always derive more benefit from exchanges — the exchanges are not "mutual".
Again, maybe getting into the finer points of definitions, but I think of "egalitarianism" when I think of reciprocity or mutual exchanges.
If an exchange is unequal, is it still reciprocal?
The kind of thing we have today is not civilized. It's just a more complicated version of the exact same might-makes-right state of nature we've always had.
I may be wrong, but couldn’t you both be using the word ‘rights’ in different ways - each of which are valid within their context?
Some people speak of rights as things which we should have the natural or moral ‘right’ (ability) to be able to choose to do without interference - those things which we should be free to have the choice to do - no matter what anyone else decides.
Others speak of rights as those customary or legal ‘rights’ (permissions) granted (or honoured) by and protected by a state and / or law (& thus could potentially be forbidden by such a state).
Sometimes these conceptions of rights overlap, sometimes they conflict, but the dictionary allows for both kinds:
Chambers Dictionary: right adj 18 socially acceptable • know all the right people. noun 1 (often rights) a power, privilege, title, etc that someone may claim legally or that is morally due to them. 2 (often rights) a just or legal claim to something. 3 fairness; truth; justice. 4 that which is correct, good or just • the rights and wrongs of the case.
Likewise with the word ‘civilisation’ which can mean an organised civil state-based society, or to a group or area which is civilised - in which people are ‘civil’ to each other.
Is there still a fundamental difference of opinion after taking this into account?
The law recognizes rights, it cannot create or remove them. "Legal rights" is either an oxymoron or a euphemism for privilege.
I agree as far the concept of 'legal' 'rights' goes - I'm just acknowledging that in the artificial hierarchal systems we live under this is sometimes how the term is used (or misused), even if it is just used that way to maintain systems of oppression.
Homelessness is the visible tip of the affordable housing crisis iceberg.
Occasionally, one finds a brilliant, pithy line that shifts paradigms.
Yours is one such line.
Thanks.