[zzquo0iR]

false and invalid

[nermise]

Yes.

[shihoodiacarf]

Very false.

Imperialism is a political system. Technically, it means a country ruled by an Emperor or Empress. It implies, however, a collection of nations ruled by a single despot.

Capitalism is an economic system.

[whimpykid]

Originally posted by BeBro
false and invalid He just doesn't understand poly.

[9V4i8xw1]

Both are systems in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth)

As opposed to?

[yasmin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Very false.

Imperialism is a political system. Technically, it means a country ruled by an Emperor or Empress. It implies, however, a collection of nations ruled by a single despot.

Capitalism is an economic system. An annoying thing with English language is that it doesn't make a distinction between the word "empire" in the sense of a state ruled by an emperor or empress, and "empire" in the sense of a far-flung territorium that's been conquered. Not all empires the latter sense have an emperor/empress at the top (eg: the French empire, when it was a republic) and not all state with an emperor/empress control far-lung territories beyond the homeland (eg: Japan).

19th century Imperialism was about conquest and not about a political system, since the various European states had different ones.

[Filling25]

DanSed you (a little).

[VawSwaspamups]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Well you are an odd fellow. Take away political/economic interactions and there is nothing else left. All our social interactions fall into this category. Errr...what?

My point is that in any social/political/economic system people tend to seek their own gratification (i.e. by accumulating power or wealth).

[Sapremolz]

e.g.

Theocracy is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth). Democracy is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth). Feudalism is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth).

etc.

Your statement is meaningless.

[Vokbeelllicky]

So socialism=capitalism=anarchy=imperialism=...?

[Talicoabilk]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
e.g.

Theocracy is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth). Democracy is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth). Feudalism is a system in which people try to maximize their social standing (through power or wealth).

etc.

Your statement is meaningless. It is not, I am trying to point out to some that there is no real distinction between economy and politics.

[Frierlovene]

So now your point has nothing to do with imperialism or capitalism? Rather it is that there is no easy distinction between politics and economics? That they're all social interactions bound by certain rules?

Why didn't you simply say that?

[nikolapegayyyaasss]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So socialism=capitalism=anarchy=imperialism=...? You completely missed what I said about emergent systems. And scales of complexity.


Let's say anarchy is a very simple system on a macro scale (It can be complex for the individuals). Like 0K it is impossible to realy reach, since there is never a complete absence of social interaction and groups. Such "perfect anarchy" could be called absolute anarchy .


What most people consider anarchy is in fact a drop to a much lower state of complexity of the system and the sudden increase of entropy perceived by the individual who was used to an ordered environment. It is a transitory state, since transition to more complex systems is unavoidable.




Now what this has to do with the thread title? Well is capitalism a transitory state wich will always bring about imperialism?

[Anykeylo]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Fixed. Duh.

Reproduction and survival are our only purposes. Any systems we form, we form in hopes of securing those two.

[levitratestimon]

Originally posted by Sandman
I voted false. For every economically worthwhile empire, there's been an economically worthless one. German and Italian Africa, for example. You could argue that capitalists benefitted from these empires (armaments manufacters, rabble-rousing press barons), but the real beneficiaries were militarists who took some capitalists along for the ride. In any country with a halfway capitalist economy, some businessman is always going to benefit from economic misdirection. But couldn’t your point be countered by saying that the economically less sound empires were failed attempts to create economically worthwhile empires? Just like there are companies that never take off and stay small before dissapearing rather quickly?

[KhJOHbTM]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


You completely missed what I said about emergent systems. And scales of complexity. And you completely missed what I said about you being stupid.

[baskentt]

Signs that the person you're talking to is a buffoon:

1) His use of any of the following terms in a pseudoquantitative manner: entropy, chaos, complexity, order, fractal, phase

2) His assignment of a set of theories/systems/philosophies along a single axis, especially one invented by that person

3) His infatuation with useless ancient Greek dudes

[Nglvayhp]

Originally posted by Blake
Yes, both are systems of power accumulation which lead to suffering for everyone. But what about the suffering of people who've had the hair and eyebrows shaved? Surely that is the worst oppression of all.

[KimLinbert]

KH

[DarrenBent]

Capitalism is a tool.

Imperialism is an end.