The problem appears to be on a deeper level

than.. say, the mechanics of trying to regulate rampant greed Out of every corporation which is sustained by that dead-end; maybe Lapham has a more cogent overview?

http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110

[. . .]

[Interviewer]
Capitalism, as you mention, is future-oriented. Do you think it relies on historical amnesia?

Well, thereÂs a new book called "Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism," by the eminent historian Joyce Appleby. And her argument Â and I think itÂs probably true Â is that capitalism is an historical phenomenon. ItÂs not a given. ItÂs not human nature. It arises at the end of the 16th century in Holland, but then is developed over the next four centuries for the most part in England and America. ItÂs had a life span of four centuries.

[. . .]

We shape our tools, and our tools shape us. And by that shaping us, they shape our attitudes, our moral sense, our sense of self-interest. Competition is the spirit elixir of capitalism. This is not true in the more traditional society where the emphasis is on community, hierarchy, order, where people are terrified of starvation.

[. . .]

Would you say that a chronic dissatisfaction is part of that dark side?

ItÂs the impertinent dynamism of ÂmoreÂ. It is a voracious, devouring appetite for more. And if weÂre not careful, unless we get control of it, it will devour the earth. Capitalism had a particularly fertile soil in America because there was so much land available. People could just go west. Take land from the Indians by force. The same thing in Mexico. Call it Manifest Destiny, but it essentially was the seizure of property. There was an abundance of resources. Every man can become king for the day or make the Forbes 500. And itÂs the individual as opposed to the community.

[. . .]

So what I mean is ... the zeitgeist is just so inimical to any social, cooperative aims -- that matters like MSG or HFCS don't even rise above the radar noise-floor -- in the perpetual pursuit of more.. More... MORE ad infinitum.

Which-all, I think [one. more. time.] echoes the Point of The Tyranny of Words, only far beyond what Chase was addressing (re. bafflegab words with no common referent, mainly re. political speech, especially in the '30s.)

IF.. we've conditioned selves to be oblivious to matters like the effects of corporate reengineered/patented(!) frankenfoods, instead: expend energies in the half-assed/unbaked rantings of the tea party fad, all the while portending a renaissance of the Old Souf, pre-civil-war (a simple way to erase from consciousness: who Won?)

THEN.. such lunacy would seem to derive from [a lot of what Lapham says and im[iies in his short essay.]
Which then would explain why corps shall Not be disabused of peddling more and More of the same shit, without a soupçon of awareness of just who / and how Many are getting fucked by their profit-making venture: because we are conditioned to deem that irrelevant to the koans of personal-profit über alles in die welt.

ie. Nothing Will be done about that, or re. poisoned aquifers (final battles will be over water, of course). nor loss of species, as a result of biped overpopulation ... nor the first 1000 things on a longer list of known-matters demanding critical thinking (if the planet is to sorta survive as a biped nest?)

Pretty pathetic, eh?

(Unless Lapham has got it completely wrong.)
To me that doesn't seem to be likely, but then I'm a one who thought he saw the US inflection point Happen.
In mid '68. And observed its persistently [-] slope ever since, varying only in rate-of-descent a little +, a little -, each few years. Are not the yahoos manifestly in ascension, in these parts, right now? Rest case.

HFCS? what's That?

wherein a mere 'mercantile tradition/process' comes to affect/infect (and even, effect) -- the mindset of the population in All human matters
-- some even trying to 'quantify' emotional states with numbers (or measure 'IQ' via spreadsheet, or ____.)

Think. about. it. before knee-jerk recitations of earliest-dates when humans devised means of keeping Their Stuff their. stuff.
We now have leetle cheeldrun who throw temper-tantrums if the labels on their clothes are not kewl-enough in their tribe.

The 'terrible twos' used to refer to the stage of growth wherein a tot learns there is an idea of 'MINE' (and wants it all.)
Now.. 'MINE' has become the base-religion of our form of Vulture-Capitalist mercantile tradition
-- gone all sociopathic: covering much more in the victms' psyches ... than 'the exchanging of goods as a livelihood.'

I'll still go with the essay, thankyouverymuch, Mr.Libertytarian-in-extremis.

Post #333,191 by Ashton 9/27/10 5:44:44 AM Reply	The problem appears to be on a deeper level than.. say, the mechanics of trying to regulate rampant greed Out of every corporation which is sustained by that dead-end; maybe Lapham has a more cogent overview? http://www.salon.com...emium%29_7_30_110 [. . .] [Interviewer] Capitalism, as you mention, is future-oriented. Do you think it relies on historical amnesia? Well, thereÂs a new book called "Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism," by the eminent historian Joyce Appleby. And her argument Â and I think itÂs probably true Â is that capitalism is an historical phenomenon. ItÂs not a given. ItÂs not human nature. It arises at the end of the 16th century in Holland, but then is developed over the next four centuries for the most part in England and America. ItÂs had a life span of four centuries. [. . .] We shape our tools, and our tools shape us. And by that shaping us, they shape our attitudes, our moral sense, our sense of self-interest. Competition is the spirit elixir of capitalism. This is not true in the more traditional society where the emphasis is on community, hierarchy, order, where people are terrified of starvation. [. . .] Would you say that a chronic dissatisfaction is part of that dark side? ItÂs the impertinent dynamism of ÂmoreÂ. It is a voracious, devouring appetite for more. And if weÂre not careful, unless we get control of it, it will devour the earth. Capitalism had a particularly fertile soil in America because there was so much land available. People could just go west. Take land from the Indians by force. The same thing in Mexico. Call it Manifest Destiny, but it essentially was the seizure of property. There was an abundance of resources. Every man can become king for the day or make the Forbes 500. And itÂs the individual as opposed to the community. [. . .] So what I mean is ... the zeitgeist is just so inimical to any social, cooperative aims -- that matters like MSG or HFCS don't even rise above the radar noise-floor -- in the perpetual pursuit of more.. More... MORE ad infinitum. Which-all, I think [one. more. time.] echoes the Point of The Tyranny of Words, only far beyond what Chase was addressing (re. bafflegab words with no common referent, mainly re. political speech, especially in the '30s.) IF.. we've conditioned selves to be oblivious to matters like the effects of corporate reengineered/patented(!) frankenfoods, instead: expend energies in the half-assed/unbaked rantings of the tea party fad, all the while portending a renaissance of the Old Souf, pre-civil-war (a simple way to erase from consciousness: who Won?) THEN.. such lunacy would seem to derive from [a lot of what Lapham says and im[iies in his short essay.] Which then would explain why corps shall Not be disabused of peddling more and More of the same shit, without a soupçon of awareness of just who / and how Many are getting fucked by their profit-making venture: because we are conditioned to deem that irrelevant to the koans of personal-profit über alles in die welt. ie. Nothing Will be done about that, or re. poisoned aquifers (final battles will be over water, of course). nor loss of species, as a result of biped overpopulation ... nor the first 1000 things on a longer list of known-matters demanding critical thinking (if the planet is to sorta survive as a biped nest?) Pretty pathetic, eh? (Unless Lapham has got it completely wrong.) To me that doesn't seem to be likely, but then I'm a one who thought he saw the US inflection point Happen. In mid '68. And observed its persistently [-] slope ever since, varying only in rate-of-descent a little +, a little -, each few years. Are not the yahoos manifestly in ascension, in these parts, right now? Rest case. HFCS? what's That?
Post #333,195 by boxley 9/27/10 8:02:50 AM Reply	hogwash assertions capitalism arose much earlier with the free traders from the 10th century forward. http://everything2.c...n+Medieval+Europe Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,224 by Andrew Grygus 9/27/10 12:04:10 PM Reply	It began much earlier than that. It is thought by many archaeologists that writing itself began with anti-pilfering inventories sent along with trade goods. The bronze age could not have been without long distance commerce because copper and tin are not mined in the same regions. Commerce requires capital.
Post #333,246 by Ashton 9/27/10 6:13:02 PM Reply	Simple title change, then: 'modern Vulture-capitalism' wherein a mere 'mercantile tradition/process' comes to affect/infect (and even, effect) -- the mindset of the population in All human matters -- some even trying to 'quantify' emotional states with numbers (or measure 'IQ' via spreadsheet, or ____.) Think. about. it. before knee-jerk recitations of earliest-dates when humans devised means of keeping Their Stuff their. stuff. We now have leetle cheeldrun who throw temper-tantrums if the labels on their clothes are not kewl-enough in their tribe. The 'terrible twos' used to refer to the stage of growth wherein a tot learns there is an idea of 'MINE' (and wants it all.) Now.. 'MINE' has become the base-religion of our form of Vulture-Capitalist mercantile tradition -- gone all sociopathic: covering much more in the victms' psyches ... than 'the exchanging of goods as a livelihood.' I'll still go with the essay, thankyouverymuch, Mr.Libertytarian-in-extremis. I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #333,250 by boxley 9/27/10 7:30:52 PM Reply	'modern Vulture-capitalism' as opposed to regular vultur kapitalism. yea, the marxists have to hang their hat on something so they invent stories to match their class warfare mantra. Face it bubba, BP, united fruit, Carnegie, Krupp, have as much in common with the Normans, huns, Angles, Vandals as anyone else. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,292 by jake123 9/28/10 11:07:38 AM Reply	Not true Commerce does not equal capitalism. Capitalism in particular has to do with markets where money is the good that is traded, usually for parts of a company that does some kind of commerce.

Welcome to IWETHEY!