From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 12:13:15 MDT
--- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> >--- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>Capitalism is probably a human invention. I'm not even sure how it
> >>could be defined so that we could look around for non-human
analogs.
> >>
> >Evolution is capitalism in action.
> >...
> >
> It's a good slogan, but as a usable definition it lacks a bit. Still,
> it might be a fair place to start from. How do you define capitalism
> and how do you define evolution? I feel a connection, but I find
> myself unable to verbalize it. Do you intend evolution here to
> include the formal mathematical theory? If so, then you are
> talking about something as omnipresent as gravity. This might be
> what you mean, but I'm unsure.
As many on this list are aware, I am a big supporter of the concept of
Objective Truth, and that human philosophies can be objectively treated
as true or untrue based on their relative degrees of congruence with
the Objective Truth embedded in the structure of the universe.
When you say I'm talking about something as omnipresent as gravity, you
are entirely correct. Capitalism, i.e. the theory of free market
dynamics, is expressed in nature in not just the process of evolution,
but in biology in general, where biological ecosystems are free market
(i.e. spontaneously organized and chaotically operated) systems for the
distribution of solar and geothermal/chemical energy and matter.
I'll note that those who believe in socialist anarchism also have a
vastly higher than normal tendency to believe in Gaia concepts, that
there has to be some meta-intelligence that encompasses the Earth's
biosphere and directing its development. This characteristic is
primarily, I think, because such individuals are constitutionally
incapable of understanding how chaotic systems can sustain themselves
in meta-stability without some overriding controller or dictator/tyrant
governing things. Such individuals, like the petty tyrants commonly
found in any commune, are inherently insecure control freaks that
cannot accept the idea of individuals living in true liberty.
>
> Territory, e.g., has two ESS within a species. In one the holder of
> the territory defends his turf against invaders, in the other he
> quickly moves over into another's territory. The second form is
> rare, but it is an ESS that evolves naturally under certain
> specifiable environmental
> constraints. (I think the main known example is a group of social
> spiders in central america.)
>
> Similarly, if we can create a mathematical theory of capitalism, we
> would necessarily define the environments in which a socialism of
> some
> sort would be mixed with it. In fact, it's probably impossible to
> define it without also defining the theory of socialism, where a
> group is evolving. Examples of this occur frequently, from the many
> examples
> in the hymenoptera to the rare examples in the mammals (mole rats are
> the only one's that spring to mind). It would need to specify both
> of those, as well as the stable states in between.
This is true. There is no reason why enclaves of communalism cannot
exist within a capitalist plenum, generally to provide shelter for
those insecure types who cannot live as truly free individuals. The
fact that socialist societies cannot tolerate capitalist enclaves
within them demonstrates which should be the plenipotentiary system.
That some species in the capitalist plenum of nature find niches where
communalism can function is a demonstration of this.
Mike Lorrey
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:41 MST