Capitalism 104

[grandpa]

Quote by: Century 25 How true.. and I think.. ironic. The "Cap's" aka: "conservatives"- love to gush about "self-sufficiency" and all the rest of their double-speak & euphemisms.. and all the while they cram communism down our throats as they always have.. by crowding as many people onto the barest minimum of land.. "common" backyards are how they love to say you don't need privacy (not for the wealthy though.. they positively adore their privacy) - and slums are by-products of their crafting also. Yes.. be "independent" - no socialism..!! Be "Free" - yes.. and that leads to grandpa's saying of:

The most fascinating aspect of this debate is an absolute refusal to acknowledge that the rich dominate resources and have power and influence over how life can develop.
That's a phenomenal denial that, in my opinion, should be placed on the scandal meter somewhere near Holocaust denial. I have a hard time even addressing this denial as anything but stupidty, because you would literally have to be stupid to not see such an obvious trend.

Quote by: Century 25 Yep.. true. Money talks & bullcrap walks.. eh..!! Well.. capitalists are like alcoholics.. they must slurp up ever increasing amounts to get their "high" :rolleyes: just as any other addiction.. greed is no different..

However, the consequences of systematic greed are greater than those of your average alcoholic.

Grandpa h.

[Century 25]

Quote by: grandpa The most fascinating aspect of this debate is an absolute refusal to acknowledge that the rich dominate resources and have power and influence over how life can develop. That's a phenomenal denial that, in my opinion, should be placed on the scandal meter somewhere near Holocaust denial. I have a hard time even addressing this denial as anything but stupidty, because you would literally have to be stupid to not see such an obvious trend..

That refusal to acknowledge the very harsh realities of this world.. is proof positive of the capitalists control of the media.. we live with a population of ever increasing.. dumb people. They simply have been disconnected from reality. They do not see anything more than what is shown them.

"A tiny portion of the population controls the lion's share of the wealth and most of the command positions of state, manufacturing, banking, investment, publishing, higher education, philanthropy, and media... these individuals exercise a preponderant influence over what is passed off as public information and democratic discourse. The ruling class is the politically active component of the owning class, the top captains of finance and policy who set the standards for investment and concentration of capital at home and abroad... Their overall economic domination and their campaign contributions, media monopoly, high-paid lobbyists, and public relations experts regularly predetermine who will be treated as major political candidates and which policy parameters will prevail... Though relatively few in number they get the most of what there is to get. Their wealth serves their power, and their power serves their wealth."

Michael Parenti

However, the consequences of systematic greed are greater than those of your average alcoholic. Grandpa h

Yes grandpa.. at least a few of us know that.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa I think people generally want to learn technical skills, at least enough to where they know how to fix things that are important to them. I fail to see how a lack of srtificially imposed costs would restrict the human instinct to create. If this indeed was the actual state of affairs I know I'd want to do more, not less. For amore general example, I don't see how there would be a greater electricity crisis, just a profit crisis for existing electricity suppliers. All we need to conduct electricity is relevant information, mechanical knowhow and a steady supply of conductivity. Well, you haven't effectively defined a scenario, but I think trade would be alive and well, and people would trade in a cooperative, non-competetive manner as they see fit. In an anarchic society, this should mean no artificial deprivation of resources, and no hierarchy, or at least highly limited hierarchy. The underlying knowledge could be the necessity of performing certain tasks to produce essential goods and services. The same kind of knowledge that exists in general society, but is currently hampered by abstract interests and elitism. Again, you assume that all knowledge knowledge and understanding of the world would instantly disappear and basic motives would all be removed in a more egalitarian society, which is itself an assumption that benefits existing elites. And here you reveal a view that's truly incredible: Money and prices are a form of knowledge. But money is no source of knowledge. and capitalist economics simply entails going out of our way to ignore the "human cost" of work, aside from costs. That's why people can easily end up in dire straits. When the only incentive for work is making money, what happens when the money is lacking? People are discouraged from doing some kind of work. And I'm not suggesting work is always grand, but that it's made worse by how it's commonly done. I'm sure I'll be accused of having "utopian" visions here, but people often end up doing work they don't even like in order to survive--often jobs no one had to do for any good reason in the first place. I even would assume that not all scam artists like what they do, or all prostitutes--but it's a way to get by when other routes aren't clear. If you free people's time, the issue of not being able to be everywhere at once will matter much less. Presumably they'll want to survive and do much more. But capitalism isn't fair and impartial. One of it's mantras to the poor is "Life is tough, deal with it!" There is no need for an abstract designation in order to allocate resources. In fact, resources needn't always be allocated in a strictly systematic fashion. Systems do sometimes complicate things, rather than help. Consider the elaborate nature of most bureaucracies, where plenty of people simply shift around paperwork in order for basic things to occur. This basic situation--whether we call it rational or irrational (I prefer irrational)--serves mostly to create a climate of servitude, to reduce the capacity for critical thinking and to focus attention on abstraction rather than on the bare reality of what the organization is up to. It was a flawed example, to be sure, but nonetheless shows the remarkable resolve an anarchic society can have. Remember, these were people who were essentially being attacked by three different armies of ideology--state capitalism, state-communism and fascism. And on top of this they were in Civil War mode. The fact that the people organized so effectively--had better functioning healthcare, had innovative agriculture techniques and still acted in a cohesive way--should win them at least some respect, whoever you are. And most did all this with a certain type of enthusiasm. I do think an anarchic society would be attacked, for obvious reasons. A spirit of independence has to be crushed in order for authorities to maintain their influence. Grandpa h.

Good lord! You keep dodging the issue. I am sure people will "cooperate as they see fit." The question always remains is if what they see as being "fit" really going to work out the way they claim. It is extremely doubtful, since the anarchists here seem to have absolutely no clue themselves what will be done. Instead the Spanish Civil War is cited as an admirable example, which at the minimum means only the pressures of warfare and being annihilated is what is the great motivator for "cooperation." I do not believe such a a state of affairs is to anyone's interest.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Century 25 That refusal to acknowledge the very harsh realities of this world.. is proof positive of the capitalists control of the media.. we live with a population of ever increasing.. dumb people. They simply have been disconnected from reality. They do not see anything more than what is shown them.

On the contrary, it has been part of Grandps's entire thesis is that all that matters is what is seen. The capitalists understands what is not seen is important and needs to be measured as well.

[Century 25]

Quote by: BobbyO On the contrary, it has been part of Grandps's entire thesis is that all that matters is what is seen. The capitalists understands what is not seen is important and needs to be measured as well.

Grandpa knows what's going down.. Also.. some wisdom from totally different sources:

"No people can be both ignorant and free."

..Thomas Jefferson

...And:

Something important that you must remember until you go six feet under.... There are only two kinds of people in the whole wide world, grifters and suckers.... [With suckers,] let their stupid brains stay asleep in their chump world. Keep your own brain honed to razor sharpness in the secret world of con.

--Iceberg Slim

[grandpa]

Quote by: Century 25 we live with a population of ever increasing.. dumb people. They simply have been disconnected from reality. They do not see anything more than what is shown them.

But, of course, some will just say you're being pessimistic, or practicing the politics of envy. Intelligent People talk about ideas, and, a sfar as I'm concerned, they need to go out of their way to seriously question power. Even a curosyr glimpse into human history should remind us of that need.

because I do so, I've been accused of practicaly every kind of political kookiness imaginable, including that:

1. I'm a totalitarian state communist
2. my philosophy means all human knowledge and creative instincts would somehow instantly be lost
3. I want a "hunter/gatherer" society

Then there are the attempts to sidetrack debate, where apparently people forget common enough words in the English language (like "what's a sweatshop?," or "what's self-sufficiency?").

Quote by: Century 25 Michael Parenti

I doubt I agree with every one of his views, but he is quite good at demonstrating political manipulation.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO Good lord! You keep dodging the issue.

Well, it's hard to discuss an issue when you assume all human motivations and knowledge would be on the brink of extinction in a less hierarchical, more egalitarian society.
That's an irrational assumption, and I know as much by logical deduction.

Quote by: BobbyO It is extremely doubtful, since the anarchists here seem to have absolutely no clue themselves what will be done. Instead the Spanish Civil War is cited as an admirable example, which at the minimum means only the pressures of warfare and being annihilated is what is the great motivator for "cooperation."

This is nonsense. The Spanish anarchists would have thrived much better if they weren't being attacked. It wan't a necesssary condition.

In addition to this bizarre assumption, you

1. fail to research into the Spanish Revolution
2. assume they had no clue what they were doing

Those two things reveal your ideological bias.

Please read this and get back to me:
Infoshop.org - An Anarchist FAQ - I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice?

"In Montblanc the collective dug up the old useless vines and planted new vineyards. The land, improved by modern cultivation with tractors, yielded much bigger and better crops. . . . Many Aragon collectives built new roads and repaired old ones, installed modern flour mills, and processed agricultural and animal waste into useful industrial products. Many of these improvements were first initiated by the collectives. Some villages, like Calanda, built parks and baths. Almost all collectives established libraries, schools, and cultural centres." [cited The Anarchist Collectives, p. 116] "Preoccupation with cultural and pedagogical innovations was an event without precedent in rural Spain. The Amposta collectivists organised classes for semi-literates, kindergartens, and even a school of arts and professions. The Seros schools were free to all neighbours, collectivists or not. Grau installed a school named after its most illustrious citizen, Joaquin Costa. The Calanda collective (pop. only 4,500) schooled 1,233 children. The best students were sent to the Lyceum in Caspe, with all expenses paid by the collective. The Alcoriza (pop. 4,000) school was attended by 600 children. Many of the schools were installed in abandoned convents. In Granadella (pop. 2,000), classes were conducted in the abandoned barracks of the Civil Guards. Graus organised a print library and a school of arts and professions, attended by 60 pupils. The same building housed a school of fine arts and high grade museum. In some villages a cinema was installed for the first time. The Penalba cinema was installed in a church. Viladecana built an experimental agricultural laboratory.

It wasn't only rural:

In total, the "regions most affected" by collectivisation "were Catalonia and Aragon, were about 70 per cent of the workforce was involved. The total for the whole of Republican territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile industry and a host of smaller enterprises. . . Services such as water, gas and electricity were working under new management within hours of the storming of the Atarazanas barracks . . .a conversion of appropriate factories to war production meant that metallurgical concerns had started to produce armed cars by 22 July . . . The industrial workers of Catalonia were the most skilled in Spain . . . One of the most impressive feats of those early days was the resurrection of the public transport system at a time when the streets were still littered and barricaded." Five days after the fighting had stopped, 700 tramcars rather than the usual 600, all painted in the colours of the CNT-FAI were operating in Barcelona." [Antony Beevor, The Spanish Civil War, pp. 91-2]

These accomplishments should impressive anyone in light of other things going on, and it simply makes sense innovation would have occured.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa Well, it's hard to discuss an issue when you assume all human motivations and knowledge would be on the brink of extinction in a less hierarchical, more egalitarian society. That's an irrational assumption, and I know as much by logical deduction. This is nonsense. The Spanish anarchists would have thrived much better if they weren't being attacked. It wan't a necesssary condition. In addition to this bizarre assumption, you 1. fail to research into the Spanish Revolution 2. assume they had no clue what they were doing Those two things reveal your ideological bias. Please read this and get back to me: Infoshop.org - An Anarchist FAQ - I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice? It wasn't only rural: These accomplishments should impressive anyone in light of other things going on, and it simply makes sense innovation would have occured. Grandpa h.

I am basing my comments upon yours- that people will figure these things out as they go along, that they will "organise" their society as they best see fit. The problems that such a community, any community, will have to deal with will not magically vanish, as you seem to insist it will. It still has to be solved. Saying people will figure it out does not inspire confidence.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO I am basing my comments upon yours- that people will figure these things out as they go along, that they will "organise" their society as they best see fit. The problems that such a community, any community, will have to deal with will not magically vanish, as you seem to insist it will. It still has to be solved. Saying people will figure it out does not inspire confidence.

But explain your lack of confidence, please. I agree many issues will persist (as they always will), but I already gave information on how Spanish Anarchists organized. And they were incredibly successful, especially given the circumstances. They wanted to remove the systematic hurdles that come with having an elite class, and they certainly enjoyed some success.

Another example is the Israeli Kibbutz movement. Though it's been undermined by the Israeli state, it still serves as a decent example.

You keep saying I haven't provided examples, but I clearly just have.
On top of that, logical deduction should indicate that not all innovation and motivation will simply disappear once society is arranged differently.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa But explain your lack of confidence, please. I agree many issues will persist (as they always will), but I already gave information on how Spanish Anarchists organized. And they were incredibly successful, especially given the circumstances. They wanted to remove the systematic hurdles that come with having an elite class, and they certainly enjoyed some success. Another example is the Israeli Kibbutz movement. Though it's been undermined by the Israeli state, it still serves as a decent example. You keep saying I haven't provided examples, but I clearly just have. On top of that, logical deduction should indicate that not all innovation and motivation will simply disappear once society is arranged differently. Grandpa h.

The Israeli kibbutz requires support from the Israeli (capitalist?) government to survive.

The claim is that motivation or innovation would dissapear. The claim is that a system is needed to efficiently direct it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO The Israeli kibbutz requires support from the Israeli (capitalist?) government to survive.

I also am made to require support from authority to survive. It doesn't mean that has to stand.

Quote by: BobbyO The claim is that motivation or innovation would dissapear. The claim is that a system is needed to efficiently direct it.

Organizations are practical, yes. I havn't argued against all organizations (though, yes, we should always exercise critical thinking when it comes to how we organize). The principles of organization could be simple: If there is a need that different people share, they should organize to see it taken care of.
I don't think people need to be bombarded with advertising or orders to carried out to find motivation. In fact, feeling like a robot or a slave often stifles motivation and innovation. Nor do I think people need to pursue unrelated tasks in order to live comfortably (you know, such as popping popcorn in a movie theater to live in an apartment). The system is just rigged that way. Direct democracy actually is applicable, and it can be quite motivational when it occurs.

A question we should all be interested in is whether so many organizations must be so hierarchical? We should all know by now that such arrangements are very capable of producing mindless obedience and sheer disaster.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa I The principles of organization could be simple: If there is a need that different people share, they should organize to see it taken care of. I don't think people need to be bombarded with advertising or orders to carried out to find motivation. Grandpa h.

I suppose people who need sports equipment could band together to produce sports equipment.

But I fail to see why producers of the component parts of sports equipment, plastics, string, leather, canvas ect would automatically bend in order to fit the needs of the sports equipment folks. After all, the tupperware people need plastic as well, and the motorcycle clun associations probably need leather jackets.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO I suppose people who need sports equipment could band together to produce sports equipment. But I fail to see why producers of the component parts of sports equipment, plastics, string, leather, canvas ect would automatically bend in order to fit the needs of the sports equipment folks.

For some bizarre reason you seem to assume worker-managed collectives must instantly be inadequate at everything, that disadvantages must instantly flourish and that they couldn't make decisions based on practical needs and priorities. But if you're really interested in seeing your assumptions debunked, I have some examples for you of workers deciding things on their own:

Yahoo! Groups
Yahoo! Groups
Yahoo! Groups
Yahoo! Groups
Yahoo! Groups

People in the above examples knew they had to work things out lest they be perpetual victims of the global economy (and feel like automatons in the workplace).

Grandpa h.

[Century 25]

Had a thought today.. capitalism is as to democracy.. what nuclear fission (as in atom bomb.. not hydrogen bomb) is to steady - state nuclear fusion... as in the stars.

As in "quick & dirty" vs nearly limitless.. and intelligent..

Greed sucks..

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa For some bizarre reason you seem to assume worker-managed collectives must instantly be inadequate at everything, that disadvantages must instantly flourish and that they couldn't make decisions based on practical needs and priorities. But if you're really interested in seeing your assumptions debunked, I have some examples for you of workers deciding things on their own: Yahoo! Groups Yahoo! Groups Yahoo! Groups Yahoo! Groups Yahoo! Groups People in the above examples knew they had to work things out lest they be perpetual victims of the global economy (and feel like automatons in the workplace). Grandpa h.

Those folks are not deciding things on their own. That hotel in Buenos Aries functions because people wish to go there, to use its services. Those yuppies paying the equivalence per night of a workers monthly salary can always go somewhere else. The workers are willing and able to charge that amount becvause there are consumers willing and able to pay that amount.The guests remain in control. Nothing has changed.

And this is because there is nothing "uncapitalist" about worker owned industry. The question always is how they structure their relationship amongst each other, between worker and consumer. Which is why answers like "people will figure it out" is a non-answer, and a complete dodge and abdication of responsibility.