Ending 20th century Socialism

With the death of Kim Jong-il North Korea's totalitarian dictator, the world can finally say goodbye to the era of 20th century 'socialism' that dominated much of the globe throughout the century. The world can say goodbye to the Stalinist dictators and the kleptocrats and say hello to... what? Consumer capitalism? Or maybe, 21st century Socialism, in the style of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.

As we've seen with Fidel Castro's retirement from dictating, Cuba has made moves towards liberalizing it's economy and ameliorating some of its more criticized human rights problems. North Korea, which is on track to build a railway and gas pipeline connecting Russia and South Korea looks to be headed down a similar path if transition goes smoothly. Will Korea continue on its political path, collapse or turn into a state capitalist economy like China? It's too early to tell. One thing is for sure, the era of 20th century socialism is in its dying days.

What will this mean for American foreign policy? Well, it will likely spell trouble, if communism dies in Korea. Who will American authorities point at to say, "look you don't want to be like them, right?" The negativist approach to tackling the socialist problem. Not North Korea. Not Cuba. Venezuela is looking pretty peachy these days. As are Vietnam and Bolivia. Also, China. But wait, China isn't socialist, its state capitalist. Right, that may be America's last chance at salvaging the image of 'capitalism.' But they'll never admit that the burgeoning China is capitalist even if it will restore faith in capitalism, they're just too prideful.

Either way, two conceivable paths could be drawn with the end of 20th century socialism. The waning of capitalism in favour of 21st century democratic socialism, or a newfound respect for China's state capitalism, and the birth of the concept of 21st century capitalism with China at its head. This spells a dramatic shift away from democratic process and widespread human rights violations in favour of economic growth.

Thus ends 20th century Socialism. Your move, China.

Say no to growth

Freedom is meaningless. If freedom is the right to endlessly exploit Earth's resources at a rate of depletion contradictory to the sustainability of human life, freedom is not an option. The infinite growth paradigm is a flawed one. Wealth is not infinitely expandable in a closed system with non-renewable resources. Capitalism may have aided in bringing us a higher 'quality' of life but at what cost? We consume more per capita than ever before in history, we consume for the sake of consumption because it is necessary to perpetuate growth and consumption. Our growth as a civilization has been almost exclusively driven by capitalist exploitation of oil, so where does that leave us?

The exploitation of oil has been nearly the sole driver of technological and economic development in the last 100 years. Capitalism which necessarily maximizes production and consumption of commodities has done just that with oil. It has marched forward at the fastest possible rate of consumption. When will this rate slow, when will it stop? When the oil runs out. If our population grew to 7 billion on the consumption of oil, what does it mean for our population when the oil runs out? Imagine the reverse. Whether or not you think alternative energy will take its place, capitalism continues to fail in respect to sustainability and the environment.

Capitalism has no mechanisms within it for the preservation of resources, it is effective at consuming resources at the fastest rate possible because it necessarily consumes them at the fastest rate possible. The system cannot sustain itself without constant growth. This means the depletion of our oil, uranium, mass-deforestation, ecosystem destruction, over-fishing, run-away climate change and a whole host of other problems with no capitalist solutions. Capitalism is like a virus on the whole of humanity. It necessarily depletes our resources in order to reproduce and grow driving forward every moment toward our ultimate demise. The problem with this virus is it hasn't yet adapted to occupy a different host, so it drives to its own destruction just the same.

People will say communism and state-driven economies are no better, that the Soviet Union was as destructive as capitalist societies. First, this argument in itself doesn't justify the capitalist paradigm. Secondly, communists have thus far played in an unfair game. Because of the largely unfettered growth of capitalist societies, communists have had to play the state-driven growth game, consuming at rates similar but slightly short of capitalist societies in order to keep up and maintain their sovereignty.

So in conclusion, if freedom means to commit species suicide, the most counter-evolutionary act possible, then I want nothing to do with freedom. If freedom is the ability to grow to a destructive end and to consume for the sake of consuming, let freedom whither and die for I will not commit myself to the cause of species suicide. It may be better to burn out than fade away, but remember Neil Young followed that line with, "Once you're gone, you can't come back."

Capitalism is necessarily the most destructive, idiotic and ill-conceived economic system ever devised and our salvation as a species lies in one thing, conscious evolution. We must recognize that long-term survival depends on a no-growth, steady-state economy.