On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
In point 11 It seems the corporations and the people who lead them are already social pathsAllanOn Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
What strikes me on public dialogue is that we get a lot of opposing
views put forward that are all based in ideology that can be stripped
so bare as to be embarrassing. This holds true for political-economic
stuff and many factual programmes on history -we still get 'Kings and
Queens' and battles with little focus on how what democracy we have
came about - amazingly,given much focus on the rich, we get little
idea of how wealth is acquired and distributed. Moral discussion
rarely gets in deep and there is massive bias towards received wisdom
and language. Journalism is stuck in value from Victorian America on
'objectivity' - frankly worlds away from what can be justified in
critical thought. In all their 'balance' they have failed to report on
debt and wage decimation for 20 years. war reporting has been a
complete sell-out since The Falklands Fiasco. In reporting the
closure of fifty UK pubs a week, no mention was made of the fact that
there was no longer any money in the hands of those who used to use
them - in 1980 the bottom 50% had 14% of the country's liquid assets -
now it's less than 1% - and clearly why businesses reliant on it have
shut.
Given that the cost of manufacturing in most products we buy is 10-15%
it's hard to see the business case for much 'offshoring' and there has
never been a case of us to decimate manufacturing other than for the
ideological right wanting to kill off unions and gerrymander
electorates.
The positives we need to get to include (tomorrow):
1.bringing back manufacturing
2.limited debt jubilee
3. return to primitive banking
4. new greener products - we should aim to cut all domestic energy
needs by 70%
5. bring in international/national service for all across US and
Europe to abolish youth unemployment and long-term unemployment
6. raise wages
7. cap high earnings and bring in wealth taxes that ensure capital is
invested
8.hang the next bankster who threatens the treason of selling out to
some tax haven
9. insist on transparent accounting on a global basis (I teach the
stuff and can no longer make sense of balance sheets)
10. no more derivatives
11. start looking for massive efficiency savings in new ways that
don't turn corporations into sociopaths.
12. establish world-wide quality of working life standards and give
the kind of support to all that leads to population control (which
includes stopping the fear your kids are so likely to die you need to
have loads).
13. stop money controlling politics - partly by ensuring it isn't to
spare for this kind of influence.
14. encourage genuine self-reliance through more work-based learning.
15. make politicians meet in public (Internet broadcast) not in secret
- and get on with a genuine peace that will entail getting rid of
rougue states and medievalist clowns
Whatever the list we need to decide it and not allow the brush off
that we can't afford it. We can. What we can't afford is for it to
turn into some centralised communism or be taken over by current
centralised money.
> > >> > America due to its ignorance OF it. People...
On Nov 7, 1:26 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I share Pat's 'tears'. In science one can pull off the positive
> eliminations and work with what's left. In the social this is hardly
> possible without moving into some solipsist fantasy as in Descartes or
> Ayn Rand's "objectivism". The farce in logical positivism is that of
> the return of desire. In attempting to extirpate system building
> (metaphysics) one is really building another. 7 books may have been
> written by Plato on how to stave off elite corruption - but of course
> he was crating an elite that would be corrupted as the Democracy was
> corrupted around him,nearly always at war.
> Inmy conception we are always working with the Undead memes of the
> past and a way forward is to bring them to light.I at least partly
> think my years in study (mostly teaching and research) have led to me
> some of the right places but one always faces the reality James
> explains a bit above.
> My frustration with philosophy is this - it relies on abilities few
> have and over time has become a pastime for these few. Almost
> everything in academe turns to this.
> In one of those weird turns, had the new inheritance laws for royal
> succession just brought in been around 200 years ago, the world wars
> may not have happened because the king of England would have been
> Germany's Kaiser. I suspect imperialism would have had its way
> anyway, but some odd turn may lead us away from the current abyss.
> OccupyX is at least getting at old left-right divides.
>
> On Nov 5, 8:59 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 27, 6:43 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> The communist angle always makes me smirk Pat. The original written
> > >> form was elite (Plato) and aimed at cutting the temptations of
> > >> corruption,and the American anti-commie stuff always failed to reflect
> > >> on itself as dire ideology. These days we have 'loop theories' that
> > >> relish both capitalism and communism in some kind of balance - but in
> > >> the end I just think we are at a past sell by date on both. I worked
> > >> for Moldovan 'wages' (mostly food and board) when I lectured there -
> > >> three weeks worth more or less paid my train fare from the airport. I
> > >> loved my days in the fields, mostly fixing machinery with parts bought
> > >> with my university salary. I'd be closer to Allan on the state of
> > >> play than Rigsy. We have made casual labouring much more difficult
> > >> for our own people to do. We could do something around such work, but
> > >> the problem is it's so much cheaper to organise around migrant labour.
>
> > > Cheaper, yes; exploitation, equally yes. Doesn't the 'West' just love
> > > to exploit those who it deems of less worth and then eke every last
> > > scrap of worth out of them? Of course, all in the name of 'better'.
> > > Sometimes, it makes me feel phyisically ill to think I, in some third-
> > > party manner, benefit from such ill use of human resources. But one
> > > man can't stop it; it takes a mindset and paradigm shift to occur in
> > > the minds of, at least, 1% of the human population--and that's, now,
> > > roughly 70 million!!
>
> > Waste is quite a dilemma, on one hand you can propel industry capital
> > but on the other is negligent arrogance in taking for granted what
> > resources are consumed. Human beings seem to be regenerative, in we
> > strive to prosper, but also rationally degenerate in that we are
> > geared toward doing so in an authentic environment where leaders arise
> > by merit, what is deemed worthy of admiration and emulation. The
> > degenerate part comes into play where we are willing to suppress all
> > our instincts to persist in degenerate environments created leaders we
> > should use for one thing but fail to give the cold shoulder in other
> > matters. I would equate much of today's figureheads as ombudsmen
> > running the purchasing dept with no concept of TCO- run into Best Buy
> > and grab the flashiest piece of hardware with no reference to field
> > experts, reliability reviews, and barely a clue what the office needs
> > from a given product. It is obvious that popularity is not a marker of
> > a productive and healthy selection process. We need to devise
> > mechanisms for progress and eliminate the weak links, but this is no
> > easy task. What is it about the 1% that will get this off the ground I
> > wonder, because I've had similar strategic ideas but it always quickly
> > devolves in my mind into thousands of dilemmas. Unless of course they
> > know, understand and believe- but what- that is the question, no?
>
> > >> On Oct 27, 3:50 pm, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Oct 24, 7:37 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > There was philosophy once called logical positivism. \\it's people
> > >> > > were well-intentioned, like Russell and Carnap. If you have a few
> > >> > > hours to spare I could explain its basics - in the end it got so
> > >> > > concerned with words they were all that was left. Strangely it was
> > >> > > accused of being crude in its use of brute fact.
>
> > >> > My sister was/is a fan of Logical Positivism. It certainly tried;
> > >> > but, as you say, it got caught up in terminology so much so that it
> > >> > found that it didn't have the language to discuss its own topics.
> > >> > Thus, eventually becoming positively, logically negated. Isn't it
> > >> > ironic...don't you think?
>
> > >> > > The problem as I see it is that we want democracy but have not found a
> > >> > > way to accept its biggest flaw - that of decisions made through the
> > >> > > sway of ignorance, and further problems with the corruption of
> > >> > > representatives. Attempts at a fix of this in perfection are doomed
> > >> > > or the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.
>
> > >> > The answer there is, as it has always been: offering a REAL education
> > >> > to the next generation.
>
> > >> > > One might try to produce communication free of ideology and this let
> > >> > > Reason alone have power (Habermas) - but as far as I can see this
> > >> > > never works - and Habermas only suggests his 'ideal speech situation'
> > >> > > as an ideal type (following Weber).
>
> > >> > The problem there is that most people don't see their own biases and,
> > >> > therefore, pass on those ideologies anyway--sometimes without ever
> > >> > seeing that truth.
>
> > >> > > The best positive I can reach is that we could change our material
> > >> > > conditions to produce less discontent. To get to an understanding of
> > >> > > this we need to agree on some basic facts - and the move towards these
> > >> > > is critical. People as old as Orn and myself can remember when it was
> > >> > > possible for most in the West to get somewhere near this because there
> > >> > > were plenty of well paid jobs about. Oversimplifying a lot this is
> > >> > > not now the case and we need to establish what the new conditions are.
>
> > >> > The problem there is that there is a veritable army of economists and
> > >> > historians trying to prevent you/us from discovering the truth OF our
> > >> > situation out of THEIR fear that, once we discover the truth, we will
> > >> > want, demand and deserve better leadership. The result is worldwide
> > >> > revolution, which, as we can all see, could get very bloody indeed.
> > >> > But, do we hide behind ignorance or maintain ignorance in order to
> > >> > avoid revolution out of the fear of bloodshed? Revolution and change
> > >> > require courage. Is humanity Brave enough FOR a New World?
>
> > >> > > Productivity is vastly enhanced from the times in which our work
> > >> > > ethics arose. My guess is we could get by quite nicely on a 30hr
> > >> > > working week and a 40 week year with retirement at 60 whilst
> > >> > > increasing current production. I am only guessing, but the reason I
> > >> > > have to guess is odd. Why don't we know? There are perhaps a dozen
> > >> > > vital areas like this to which we have no accepted answers.
>
> > >> > I've even thought of changing to a 5-day week in which we work 3 days
> > >> > and are off 2 days. 365 is far more divisible by 5 than it is 7 and
> > >> > it is only a religious concept that binds us to a 7-day week.
>
> > >> > > The positive moves are all about establishing facts and the first of
> > >> > > these has to be an explanation of why we are so bad at this and
> > >> > > whether new technology can help break the 'spell'. Here, the paradox
> > >> > > is we need the technology to start working to this end with most
> > >> > > people not able to understand why and an existing situation in which
> > >> > > dominant education and media will try to pervert any attempts.
>
> > >> > Yup. Well spotted!! And not so easily avoided. Especially when there
> > >> > is a 'sea of troubles' to oppose before we could end them.
>
> > >> > > Many are discussing these issues in great detail. I'm sure a few of
> > >> > > us could put a '101' together from Internet sources. Semiotics is a
> > >> > > key discipline in the critique (Michael Betancourt), as is
> > >> > > environmental science (as opposed to the Kymer Vert) and most
> > >> > > economics that you don't get on Fox and the increasingly dumb BBC
> > >> > > (Steve Keen) One can even argue the Tea Party and OccupyX have
> > >> > > similar protest issues. You can get a radical smear of this on the
> > >> > > Keiser Report (courtesy on Russia Today).
>
> > >> > > The aim is already worked out - a return to economies with a link
> > >> > > between toil (labour value) and reward and money in people's hands,
> > >> > > not hoarded by an elite or subject to their looting- and meaningful
> > >> > > democracy.
>
> > >> > AND making that not sound too much like the communism that it is.
> > >> > LOL!! I only say that because of the massive fear of communism by
>
> read more »--
()|_D AllanLife is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário