Re: Mind's Eye Re: Madness and Sanity

That's long been the argument in principle rigs - the question is who
the wars suit.

On 23 Feb, 22:50, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The way responsible people solve their problems: common sense! Don't
> spend more than you earn- pay your bills- keep your wits about you-
> avoid dumb mistakes. Remember when Iraq was going to pay for the war
> with oil? Now the young Afghans at the Oscars love hamburgers and
> fries in LA- that might have solved our problems in the Middle East-
> McDonald's et al plus a few Disneyworlds.
>
> On Feb 23, 3:46 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We can bitch complain and point fingers all we want..
>
> > that does not solve the problem. now the real question still remains..
>
> > How do we solve the economic problems..
>
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:37 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Getting to something different is something academics don't help with
> > > - whether left or right.  Their language gets far too difficult.  The
> > > quote above and below come from a paper I agree with -
> > >http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue61/BichlerNitzan61.pdfandthis
> > > finishes:
>
> > > "All capital is finance and only finance, and it exists as finance
> > > because accumulation represents
> > > not the material amalgamation of utility or labour, but the continuous
> > > creordering of power.
> > > To challenge capitalism is to alter and eventually abolish the way it
> > > creorders power. But in
> > > order to do so effectively, we need to comprehend exactly what it is
> > > that we challenge. Power,
> > > we argue, is not an external factor that distorts or supports a
> > > material process of
> > > accumulation; instead, it is the  inner driving force, the means and
> > > ends of capitalist
> > > development at large. From this viewpoint, capitalism is best
> > > understood and contested not as
> > > a mode of consumption and production, but as a mode of power. Perhaps
> > > this understanding
> > > of what our society is could help us make it what we want it to be."
>
> > > (creordering is explained in the paper)
>
> > > I can imagine one of my cousins (who didn't do university but are
> > > sharp enough) reading the paper and declaring, 'Well I'll go to the
> > > foot of our stairs our Neil.  The world is about power then"!  My
> > > grandson's lot might say "Like we don't know"!
>
> > > Socialist Paradise and Capitalist Free Trade are both fictions we
> > > never have - why does out thinking get wrapped up so easily in
> > > fighting each other over these myths?  No scientist would try to
> > > explain anything through such dross.  Soviet Paradise should give us a
> > > history of mistakes (let alone terror) and current Western or Chinese
> > > capitalism the same (both with their own terror and atrocities).  The
> > > failure has always been one of ordinary people being able to get
> > > together to establish what they want - both as a present and a
> > > future.  We are so dumb we barely grasp that a tiny fraction of
> > > humanity will even force us to war in order to maintain their riches.
> > > Universal education has failed.  We need a clean break.
>
> > > On 22 Feb, 23:02, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I find so-called debate on capitalism versus socialism misses the
> > >> point.  They are two ways of articulating something both agree on
> > >> deeper down - and this may be the mistake involving the separation of
> > >> politics and economics.
> > >> "The features of this separation are worth summarizing, beginning with
> > >> the liberal view. Over
> > >> the past half millennium, liberals have grown accustomed to
> > >> classifying production,
> > >> technology, trade, income and profit as aspects of the economy. By
> > >> contrast, entities like
> > >> state, law, army and violence are classified as belonging to politics.
> > >> The economy is taken to be the productive source. It is the realm of
> > >> individual freedom,
> > >> rationality, frugality and dynamism. It creates output, raises
> > >> consumption and moves society
> > >> forward. By contrast, politics is conceived as coercive-collective. It
> > >> is corrupt, wasteful and
> > >> conservative. It is a parasitical sphere that latches onto the
> > >> economy, taxing it and intervening
> > >> in its operations.
> > >> Ideally, the economy should  be left on its own.  Laissez faire
> > >> politics would produce the
> > >> optimal economic outcome. But in practice, we are told, this is never
> > >> the case: political
> > >> intervention constantly distorts economics, undermines its efficient
> > >> operation and hampers the
> > >> production of individual well-being. The liberal equation, then, is
> > >> simple: the best society is
> > >> one with the most economics and the least politics.  [rigs may be a
> > >> case]
> > >> The Marxist view of this separation is different, but not entirely.
> > >> For Marx, the liberal project of
> > >> severing civil society from state is a misleading ideal, if not
> > >> outright self-deception.
> > >> The legal act of setting the private economy apart from public
> > >> politics alienates property; and that very
> > >> alienation, he says, serves to defend the private interests of
> > >> capitalists against the collective
> > >> pursuit of a free society. From this perspective, a seemingly
> > >> independent political-legal
> > >> structure is not antithetical but essential to the material economy:
> > >> it allows the organs and
> > >> bureaucracy of the state to legitimize capital, give accumulation a
> > >> universal form and help
> > >> maintain the capitalist system as a whole." [maybe Allan]
>
> > >> We need something else.
>
> > >> On 22 Feb, 15:47, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > If the universities were hot-beds of anything like socialism I'd be
> > >> > happy to dedicate the rest of my life to teaching in one.  I don't do
> > >> > socialism on the grounds it evades much that needs investigation by
> > >> > positing Socialist Paradise.  This is no better than he clapped-out
> > >> > formula of neo-conservatism.  The obvious problems with elites and
> > >> > corruption, crime and banditry are neglected.  Universities are hardly
> > >> > hot-beds of anything other than a soggy mediocre and false
> > >> > technocracy.  Business schools are the paradigm case.  The outlook is
> > >> > bleak because there was an understanding in Europe that elites were
> > >> > likely to fail because of a lack of morality and much training (as
> > >> > Plato) should be focused on virtue ethics - obviously hapless when one
> > >> > considers the collapse of such under the Nazis - my sense of things is
> > >> > we face a repeat of this now - the key issue is that power tends to
> > >> > corrupt and how we might form and strengthen institutions that prevent
> > >> > this (or remove them because they are the corruption).  A few days
> > >> > with your hair down with some of my actual socialist friends would
> > >> > probably disabuse you of any notion universities have any socialists
> > >> > rigs!
> > >> > It doesn't matter to me whether corruption takes the form of terror of
> > >> > the 'Zil Chill Factor' I witnessed in the Soviet Block, wasta systems
> > >> > in the Middle East (Fakilaki in Greece) or allegedly capitalist
> > >> > ideologies justifying massive wealth disproportion - they are all
> > >> > roads to serfdom under kleptocracy.  A peculiar feature of all
> > >> > dominant ideologies is all kinds of people can articulate them when
> > >> > they are dominant and all claim not to have been fooled by them after
> > >> > they collapse - many articulate them in public knowing they are false
> > >> > for that matter.
> > >> > Our current management systems are junk, but sadly people who do
> > >> > understand this as the case usually point to "better" versions
> > >> > elsewhere without understanding these are really the same junk in a
> > >> > culture they don't properly understand.  Thus the German or Japanese
> > >> > models are touted as more concerned with sustainability and the
> > >> > community of a firm than in the US - or "Soviet Paradise" or Maoism
> > >> > are lauded without any understanding of the horrors and terror.  One
> > >> > Japanese sociologist (lovely bloke), hearing I was there to develop an
> > >> > understanding of Japanese management that could be transferred to the
> > >> > UK said, 'The whole notion fills me with dread Neil'.  He was good
> > >> > enough to go through some of the textbook summaries of such and
> > >> > explain what they missed out.
> > >> > We need rules to keep us honest and encourage innovation and personal
> > >> > freedom.  My own view is a satisfactory system is achievable only if
> > >> > we are all accountable to our peers fairly directly - but this needs
> > >> > to be understood against a history in which our very peers might burn
> > >> > us at the stake for daring to say the earth orbits the sun.
> > >> > Protecting freedom of expression is not about letting CEOs hide from
> > >> > peer justice through siting the firm in Delaware.
>
> > >> > On Feb 22, 2:41 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > I always thought that confession was a way for the soul to escape punishment..
>
> > >> > > If my memory serves me right there are some very strict conditions
> > >> > > involved.. not just a few prayers..
>
> > >> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:46 PM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > I think Confession was an attempt to bare the soul. It's said
> > >> > > > Shakepeare returned to Catholicism on his deathbed and he knew
> > >> > > > practically everything about human nature, didn't he?
>
> > >> > > > On Feb 22, 12:50 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >> Well Neil,, I only could wish I was that smart.  though it will take
> > >> > > >> me quite a while to read through the paper  Ii did notice a term i
> > >> > > >> have not seen before kleptocrats --  strange work wen I looked it up I
> > >> > > >> thought it was a newly created word like banksters is only to find
> > >> > > >> whole pages on the term..  but when I went to use itit was not in the
> > >> > > >> spell
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.