Jordan Peterson

[Lexicus]

How do you define pre-capitalist? What square inch on earth is free from the influence of Western consumption?

There are still people living as they did before agriculture, let alone capitalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

In 2013, it was estimated that there were more than 100 uncontacted tribes around the world, mostly in the densely forested areas of South America, Central Africa, and New Guinea.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese

Probably the most well-known individual example of an uncontacted tribe. I think it would be incredibly fascinating to hear what they think of the helicopters and boats and so on that they've encountered over and around their island.

Other examples include subsistence farming on the margin of survival - it's difficult to understand how that kind of activity interacts with Western consumption. There are still some people doing that albeit not many.

Keep in mind, this doesn't really provide any evidence for luiz's point either. The Sentinelese, for example would, pretty obviously, violently resist any attempt to put them in sweat shops and to say that they 'dream of' sweatshop labor is patently ridiculous.

 

[inthesomeday]

Even the Sentinelese will suffer from rising sea levels my man

 

[luiz]

If only the whole world could be as carbon neutral as the good old USSR... That was a true environmentalist paradise.

 

[Lexicus]

"Affected by rising sea levels" =/= "suffering under capitalist oppression"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Even the Sentinelese will suffer from rising sea levels my man

No, they won't. Their island rises very rapidly behind a very narrow beach. If sea level rises enough to ruin modern civilization completely they probably won't even notice.

 

[Lexicus]

No, they won't. Their island rises very rapidly behind a very narrow beach. If sea level rises enough to ruin modern civilization completely they probably won't even notice.

Actually, good point. All indications are they were fine through the 2004 tsunami; we're unlikely to make the sea rise that much in any reasonable amount of time.

 

[inthesomeday]

If only the whole world could be as carbon neutral as the good old USSR... That was a true environmentalist paradise.

Ah yes, the good ol non-capitalist USSR...

"Affected by rising sea levels" =/= "suffering under capitalist oppression"

Eh, I disagree. Capitalism is globally influential, is my point, nobody and nothing on earth is free from it.

No, they won't. Their island rises very rapidly behind a very narrow beach. If sea level rises enough to ruin modern civilization completely they probably won't even notice.

Then they’ll be affected by the extinction of edible fish and the acidification of the ocean and rain, by the depletion of the ozone, and by air becoming unbreathable to humans.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, good point. All indications are they were fine through the 2004 tsunami; we're unlikely to make the sea rise that much in any reasonable amount of time.

The bluffs behind the beaches rise about twenty meters. If we make the sea rise that much ever we are going to need interplanetary water importing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Then they’ll be affected by the extinction of edible fish and the acidification of the ocean and rain, by the depletion of the ozone, and by air becoming unbreathable to humans.

When one frantic attempt at scare mongering is exposed, try four more. Words to live by.

 

[luiz]

Yes, and while they do invest in capital improvements, the vast majority of the economy is still state-owned. You're focusing on the "capitalist" part; surely some of the credit here belongs to the "dictatorship" part.

China's "capitalism" is completely different from what we have in Western democracies. It is not market capitalism. China is a pretty clear counterpoint to those who claim that you need free markets to lift people out of poverty. The state is obviously quite competent to do so as well, using China as an example.

Sorry I missed this post.

But you have some common misconceptions about China. SOEs are very important there, but they don't represent the "vast majority of the economy". Indeed they account for just 3.4% of total companies, and under 30% of total assets. Even among industrial enterprises, SOEs account for just 48% of total assets. And shrinking fast. So the vast majority of the economy is actually in private hands.

China is being lifted from poverty by the market indeed.

 

[Lexicus]

The bluffs behind the beaches rise about twenty meters. If we make the sea rise that much ever we are going to need interplanetary water importing.

Nah, we could cause 60+ meters of sea level rise by melting all the ice. But it's unlikely we'll be able do that faster than a few thousand years (I say "unlikely" because who knows, we might surprise me).

Eh, I disagree. Capitalism is globally influential, is my point, nobody and nothing on earth is free from it.

I know this is your point, and the problem with it is that, as I noted in an earlier post, to sustain this argument you need to take capitalism out of the realm of concrete relations between people and into the realm of esoteric metaphysics.

So to answer your question:

How do you define pre-capitalist?

I would define pre-capitalist in a way that centers social relations.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The bluffs behind the beaches rise about twenty meters. If we make the sea rise that much ever we are going to need interplanetary water importing.

I don't think we'll "need" much of anything in such a scenario. Not anymore. But I suppose the people living on that island *will* feel the effects at that point...or would have.

 

[inthesomeday]

Nah, we could cause 60+ meters of sea level rise by melting all the ice. But it's unlikely we'll be able do that faster than a few thousand years (I say "unlikely" because who knows, we might surprise me).

Depending on what estimates you look at the feedback loop of arctic methane release might do us in by like 2100 or sooner.

I know this is your point, and the problem with it is that, as I noted in an earlier post, to sustain this argument you need to take capitalism out of the realm of concrete relations between people and into the realm of esoteric metaphysics.

Not necessarily. Certain concrete relations have wide-reaching, global effects that are felt even by people totally outside of those relations. Capitalism is to blame, in my opinion, for sub-Saharan poverty even among societies that have never seen a white person, by virtue of its ravenous consumption of African resources and poisoning of African land, both of which have far-reaching ecological and even cultural effects on everyone in proximity. Likewise, it is to blame for scarcity of resources on Indian Ocean Island or Brazilian rainforests quite similarly.

I would define pre-capitalist in a way that centers social relations.

But then quite similar to luiz you see it in too limited a way, ignoring lots of context and rippling cause-and-effect. And I’m not talking, like, reaching or tangential nonsense— like, a butterfly flaps its wings and a hurricane in the South Pacific intensifies— I’m talking very empirically backed and mostly quite direct cause-and-effect. A nation spits toxic chemicals into the air that destabilizes climatological relationships, causing an accelerated temperature inversion that intensifies a South Pacific hurricane.

 

[Lexicus]

Depending on what estimates you look at the feedback loop of arctic methane release might do us in by like 2100 or sooner.

We don't need to melt anywhere near all the ice in the ice caps to do ourselves in.

Not necessarily. Certain concrete relations have wide-reaching, global effects that are felt even by people totally outside of those relations. Capitalism is to blame, in my opinion, for sub-Saharan poverty even among societies that have never seen a white person, by virtue of its ravenous consumption of African resources and poisoning of African land, both of which have far-reaching ecological and even cultural effects on everyone in proximity. Likewise, it is to blame for scarcity of resources on Indian Ocean Island or Brazilian rainforests quite similarly.

But then quite similar to luiz you see it in too limited a way, ignoring lots of context and rippling cause-and-effect. And I’m not talking, like, reaching or tangential nonsense— like, a butterfly flaps its wings and a hurricane in the South Pacific intensifies— I’m talking very empirically backed and mostly quite direct cause-and-effect. A nation spits toxic chemicals into the air that destabilizes climatological relationships, causing an accelerated temperature inversion that intensifies a South Pacific hurricane.

There is far less difference between your "reaching or tangential nonsense" and your "empirically backed and mostly quite direct cause-and-effect" than you seem to think. We don't understand the Earth system anywhere near well enough to nail down causality the way you're talking about. There is no empirical evidence for anything like "nation spits toxic chemicals into the air....intensifying a South Pacific hurricane" (minor detail: they're called typhoons there, as I'm sure you know).

You are assigning capitalism a nearly magical malign power, defining it in terms that make it inescapable. By your logic, humans fifty thousand years from now will still be oppressed by capitalism no matter what we do today, because the carbon we're emitting today will still be in the atmosphere then.

 

[inthesomeday]

We don't need to melt anywhere near all the ice in the ice caps to do ourselves in.

True, but affecting the Sentinelese won’t require melting all the ice in the ice caps either. We’ve probably already affected them significantly.

There is far less difference between your "reaching or tangential nonsense" and your "empirically backed and mostly quite direct cause-and-effect" than you seem to think. We don't understand the Earth system anywhere near well enough to nail down causality the way you're talking about.

It’s kind of climate change denial to disagree that western industrialism has significantly worsened tropical storm systems.

There is no empirical evidence for anything like "nation spits toxic chemicals into the air....intensifying a South Pacific hurricane" (minor detail: they're called typhoons there, as I'm sure you know).

Oh yeah my bad

You are assigning capitalism a nearly magical malign power, defining it in terms that make it inescapable. By your logic, humans fifty thousand years from now will still be oppressed by capitalism no matter what we do today, because the carbon we're emitting today will still be in the atmosphere then.

Sadly yeah, a lot of capitalism’s damage is permanent

 

[Traitorfish]

It seems like there's value in distinguishing between a pre-capitalist society, and a pre-capitalist world. People may inhabit the former without inhabiting the latter.

China is being lifted from poverty by the market indeed.

The Chinese would probably attribute their newfound prosperity to the hard work and ingenuity of the Chinese people, rather than than to some disembodied spook called "the market".

We hear so much about how a Bezos or Musk attained their wealth through sheer personal heroism; you would think we could extend a fraction of that charity to an entire country.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

I want to report y'all for being wildly off-topic, but I don't want this thread to be closed yet again.

Moderator Action: Then it would be wise to say nothing at all. ~ Arakhor

 

[Traitorfish]

I want to report y'all for being wildly off-topic,

Welcome to CFC.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Eh, where is it written that they took what $1.9 dollars can buy in the US, and not in a weighted global average?

Where it says "defined as living at a consumption (or income) level below 1.90 "international $" per day. International $ are adjusted for price differences between countries and for price changes over time (inflation)" that's where.

Again, its not about the World Bank being morons, its about the reality that the $1.90 figure to define "global poverty" is completely useless concept and was probably chosen for agenda-driven reasons, not practical reasons. $1.90 of "international dollars" is basically enough to buy a 20 oz bottle of soda and maybe a piece of bubble gum.

 

[luiz]

Where it says "defined as living at a consumption (or income) level below 1.90 "international $" per day. International $ are adjusted for price differences between countries and for price changes over time (inflation)" that's where.

Again, its not about the World Bank being morons, its about the reality that the $1.90 figure to define "global poverty" is completely useless concept and was probably chosen for agenda-driven reasons, not practical reasons. $1.90 of "international dollars" is basically enough to buy a 20 oz bottle of soda and nothing else.

Did you not read what was written just below ? It's what $1.9 can buy in the world's 15 poorest countries, obviously adjusted to price differences and inflation between them. They found it's enough to cover the very basic needs of one person for one day in these countries. It's not at all what $1.9 can buy in the US.

I'm going to assume you're just playing dumb because the alternative is quite unflattering to you.

You really are arguing that World Bank economists are a bunch of imbeciles, but the effective message is not being what you would like.