Too harsh a judgment?

Without a doubt, there are some who might think that describing American economic and political activity as a "disease" is being too harsh. I can understand their feelings, even if I don't agree with their judgment. After all, just what is a "disease"?

The Free Dictionary (online) provides us with three definitions, all of which are fairly standard:

1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.
3. Obsolete Lack of ease; trouble.

While the first is generally directed to physical organisms, there is nothing that restricts us from applying it to any organism or system of an organism, such as the "body politic", or "the economy" or "society", or whatever. This is, in essence, acknowledged in the second definition, as it can describe any condition or tendency regarded as abnormal or harmful.

I suppose we could argue all day whether our culture or our society can be considered an organism, but the analogy has been used for centuries without anyone complaining. I don't see why this has to be an issue now. Moreover, we could also spend all our time arguing about what is "normal", thereby attempting to determine what does not fit into that scheme (i.e. that which is "abnormal"). This does vary from society to society and from culture to culture, but the other word used does provide us with a sound starting point, leaving us with "a condition or tendency regarded as harmful". There is little question that the US form of capitalism is harmful, in many ways.

When we consider the amount of pollution it produces, the amount of environmental damage it inflicts, the wealth inequality and poverty that it generates, the "stress" (on individuals and whole peoples), I think we can start identifying the "group of signs or symptoms" required by the first definition above.

Don't get me wrong, the Americans aren't the only ones, but they are the cheerleaders for more, not less, capitalism; the US is home to the idea of unfettered free-market capitalism; in the US there is simply no discussion that is not ultimately, if not solely, about money/capital (most often expressed in the can-we-afford-it argument). When the Americans start propagating this outside their own borders (which is precisely what the corporate takeover of the world is about), well, that's when it starts looking infectious, dangerous, most disease-like.

The good news is, it can't go on for ever. Like any faulty system of thought, any destructive ideology, it carries within itself its own seeds of destruction. Capitalism lives from the notion of unlimited growth; the earth, however, is limited: there is only so much space and so many resources, so when either (or both) of these hit their limits, there is simply no more growth. Capitalism, if left to itself, will consume itself. The bad news is that if the environmental catastrophe that wipes out (perhaps only most of) the human race before that time, the destruction may be more than we all can handle. Of course, at that point, none of us will have to worry about anything anymore.

Capitalists like all-or-nothing arguments, but they avoid this one. No, when seen from a broader perspective, it's just a disease, and the disease peddlers aren't even thinking about a cure.