Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Happy New Year!
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
BarkellWH
Posts: 3460
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
 RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
Playing down inhumane principles of capitalism by referring to the Soviet Union as allegedly contrasting example ...
I repeat, Ruphus, the primary problem is the human species, not particular economic systems. Every economic system has the potential for exploitation and conflict, be it Capitalism, Socialism Communism, or Primitive Tribal.
As an example of the latter, I would offer Rapa Nui (Easter Island). The population completely exploited all resources on the island and de-nuded it of all trees. The resulting war for resources and power between the "long ears" and the "short ears" devastated the population in the 17th century.
To sum up, economic systems do not subvert human beings; rather, human beings subvert economic systems, just as they subvert practically every other decent activity in which they have engaged throughout history. This will not change unless and until human beings themselves undergo a sea-change in attitude and culture.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 4 2012 14:33:44
 |
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
quote:
Playing down inhumane principles of capitalism by referring to the Soviet Union as allegedly contrasting example ...
I repeat, Ruphus, the primary problem is the human species, not particular economic systems. Every economic system has the potential for exploitation and conflict, be it Capitalism, Socialism Communism, or Primitive Tribal.
As an example of the latter, I would offer Rapa Nui (Easter Island). The population completely exploited all resources on the island and de-nuded it of all trees. The resulting war for resources and power between the "long ears" and the "short ears" devastated the population in the 17th century.
To sum up, economic systems do not subvert human beings; rather, human beings subvert economic systems, just as they subvert practically every other decent activity in which they have engaged throughout history. This will not change unless and until human beings themselves undergo a sea-change in attitude and culture.
Cheers,
Bill
Hello Bill,
Please take your time for congruence.
Capitalism is an economical system of accumulating capital. As the name tells already, its center and priority being capital and with that inherently the exploitation of thirds as secondaries (, which again being why capitalism and democracy inevitably exclude each other).
Such exploitation of fellow humans was going on at Easter Island too.
The trees there were used up completely as trunks used for transporting rocks, which again had been shaped as figures that were meant to represent the power of the chiefs in question. With the increasingly larger figures intended to overtop competition, the trees were decimated until the fools couldn´t even build boats anymore to leave the deserted island.
The picture of human beings that you reflect is what clerics and feudals ( said capitalists on principle ) have masticated to the people since thousands of years. Yet, it is actual nonesense as one can discover if investing to inform himself on anthropology and behavioural science.
With the distorted image of selfish and shortsighted "human nature" as traditionally indoctrinated, hominids could had not withstood the partially exrteme environmental challenge and pressure through the millions of years.
In fact even apes hardly would had.
Men is an associative and social species by its very nature.
Oligarchy is unnatural to men.
The resulting discrepancy between natural demand and detouched community of capitalst society after all is the reason why mental health situation world wide being at where it is.
Menkind would need another ~ 85 000 years to genetically adapt to the asocial being under capitalism, -
if it could only survive as long under unnatural conditions, which it apparently can´t.
Which would bring us back to the issue and background of our dying planet.
-
Ricardo,
The first reason for overpopulation is enhanced offspring due to lack of ensured age provision, again as repercussion of feudalism / capitalism. The second one appears to be reaction to child mortality.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 4 2012 16:48:36
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3460
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
Such exploitation of fellow humans was going on at Easter Island too.
Exactly my point, Ruphus, and it was not Capitalism. I think the error in your logic is you view all human activity through a prism that suggests any system that exploits people and resources is necessarily Capitalism. History suggests otherwise. History suggests that those in charge (under any political/economic system) attempt to subvert the system to the advantage of those in power.
Example No. 1: Easter Island (already discussed).
Example No. 2: The Kwakiutl Indians of the Pacific Northwest in the U.S. and Canada. Antrhopologists thought they had discovered a people (the Kwakiutl Indians) who were not materialistic and acquisitive. Every year the Kwakiutls would hold what was called a "Potlatch," where they would gather for community activities. The highlight was those with the most possessions would give their possessions away to others. This appeared to be a primitive form of philanthropy...until it was discovered that the motive for the give-away was that great prestige accrued to the one who gave away the most, and he attained the most power within the group.
Example No. 3: The Soviet Union, an example of a Communist (or, if you will, Command Economy Socialist) system with state-owned and run resources (supposedly in the name of the proletariat) that exploited and over-exploited both the resources and its people. It is the perfect example of supposed Socialism subverted by human beings. Just because it was an exploitative system does not automatically make it Capitalism.
Example No. 4: Cuba, an example of absolute state control of resources and population, and gross exploitation of both. Certainly not a Capitalist system.
Example No. 5: Any number of political/economic systems in Latin America over the years. Some were and still are Leftist, and some were and still are Rightist. All, to a greater or lesser degree, exploited their people politically and resources economically. That they exploited their people and resources did not automatically suggest each of their systems were Capitalist.
One must get away from the simplistic idea that exploitation occurs only under Capitalism. It occurs under all systems that have been tried to date. And the "accumulation of capital" occurs for various reasons in all systems. In the case of the Kwakiutls, it was to be given away, not for reasons of "brotherly love," but to enhance prestige and power. Capitalism certainly has had a history of exploitation of both people and resources, but so has every other system. It goes back to the root problem: Human attitudes. Those in power in any system attempt to bend the system to their advantage, be it Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, or primitive Tribal Societies. I wish I could paint you a more optimistic picture, Ruphus, but I can't.
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 4 2012 18:01:23
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3432
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
Oligarchy is unnatural to men.
Ruphus
Really? You keep giving us examples of people exercising oligarchy with great effectiveness. Please point out any large society, past or present, which has not been organized as an oligarchy. I find there to be no practical distinction between oligarchy and hierarchy, though "oligarchy" may be more often used as a pejorative
Or is your statement based purely in theory?
In my experience, egalitarianism may persist in small groups, but not in larger ones with complex tasks to perform.
I have worked for, and still own a small share of a company that now employs about 50 people. It has intentionally remained small, and it has intentionally grown very slowly, selecting the people it hires with great care. Everybody knows everybody else. Everybody owns part of the company. Your enthusiastic praise of the employee-owned robotics company fits this company precisely. Ironically, you blew off the description of my company, since it is part of the military/industrial complex. I wouldn't be surprised if you blew it off again, but I speak from personal experience.
My continued ownership of part of this company seems not to be resented by the present workers, judging from the signed individual greetings of a couple dozen people on the Christmas card I receive every year with my dividend check.
They don't seem to see me as an expropriator of their labor, but as a former colleague who deserves my share of the earnings due to the work I did when I was there. I didn't buy my share of ownership. I earned it by working there. When I stop by for a visit, people gather around to exchange greetings and stories.
By the way, the company is organized "capitalistically" with shares of stock, a board of directors, a president and other officers. It was the only practical way to organize it under the prevailing legal system. But it works because everybody knows and respects everybody else, and because decision making by the steering committee is transparent and is open to comment and input by everybody. But even here one sees incipient oligarchy in the delegation of a large share of decision making to a group of only 1/5 of the workers.
Yet in my experience as a member of the steering committee, the views of all the workers were sought and heeded in decision making. A good deal of effort was made to expose the decision making process to everyone at weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual meetings of the entire staff. Discussion went on until everyone had their say. Everyone knew and respected everyone else.
While I worked there, there was no social hierarchy, and it still looks to be the case. I shared my secretary with the company president, whose office was next door to mine. All three of us were social equals. She worked on tasks whose priority was decided by three-way discussions, if necessary, not because one of her clients was the president and the other was not. If we didn't have enough work to keep her busy, she found other work to do.
At the beginning of my industrial career, I worked for a company that grew very rapidly from a small company to one with sales of $1-billion per year and a listing on the New York Stock Exchange. The first year I worked there sales grew from $20-million/year to $200-million, due to a single large, high priority contract. I knew personally all the founders of this company, and worked directly for one of them, who became my mentor and lifelong friend.
Early in the very rapid growth of the company, oligarchy appeared out of necessity. Most of the company's work centered on a group of closely related projects where the founders were among the world's leading technical experts. There wasn't time to accomplish the externally constrained goals and at the same time implement collective decision making. By the time I left this company, I considered it to be pathological. It exhibited many of the ills of capitalism, as well as some of those of Soviet and Chinese "communism". No bloodshed though, despite most of the employees being Texans.
The founders of the company considered it to have developed pathologically as well, despite all of them being men of intelligence, the highest ethics and exemplary goodwill. They willingly sold their stock shares to a successor company when the opportunity presented itself, despite having devoted a significant fraction of a lifetime to building the company.
Early on my boss described to me the results of inadvertently hiring a few sons of bitches during the rapid expansion. The results of a few bad decisions on hiring or promoting managers was so readily apparent as not to require comment.
My diagnosis was that centralized and necessarily rapid decision making inspired distrust among those who didn't know the founders, or who very seldom interacted with them. Distrust led to an attitude of self-defense, and eventually to an attitude of selfish striving. Oligarchy arose out of necessity, but went wrong. A large component of it going wrong was the founders' mistaken expectation that the employees would all be as intelligent and ethical as they were. Many employees were that virtuous, but the sons of bitches won out in the end.
I also had close and long lasting contact with two mega-corporations, Boeing and Lockheed, and was employed by another, Raytheon. Each was a successful oligarchy, but in different ways.
Boeing was a pleasure to deal with, but I wouldn't have liked to work there. Hierarchy was enforced in detail, from the highest to the lowest levels. Hierarchy was necessary in the large and highly technical projects undertaken by Boeing. Its enforcement in detail was unusually thorough. It functioned efficiently. Employees were very well paid, and rewarded for their accomplishments. But they were offered opportunities for accomplishment only in accordance with their level in the hierarchy and the tasks they were assigned.
In my years of working with them I never had a quarrei with their ethics. I never encountered a successful son of a bitch in a management position. Yet I felt that personally I would have been uncomfortable with the limitations that the strict hierarchy imposed. I much preferred to work for them as an independent consultant, despite a few job offers
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company was also a successful oligarchy, but its flaws were a little more evident than Boeing's. I won't bore you with the details. Here again, hierarchical organization was absolutely necessary to carry out the highly complex technical projects Lockheed worked on, and the inevitable result was oligarchy. Sons of bitches and idiots occasionally rose to lower level management positions, resulting in oppression and injustice, but the ones I was personally acquainted with were eliminated after a few years, or even a few weeks,, sometimes by the direct intervention of Lockheed Missiles and Space Company's main U.S. Government customer, the Navy Strategic Program Office.
Managers at the highest levels could be cold and impersonal, but you knew where they stood, and they were generally perceived as fair and just. I can testify that they were highly competent technically.
I hope I have made my point. Hierarchy seems to me to be an innate human talent that arises when large groups engage in complex tasks. The distinction between oligarchy and hierarchy is to me tenuous at best. At times oligarchy is benign and beneficial, all too often it is evil.
If your belief that oligarchy is unnatural is based on theoretical grounds, or extrapolation from small groups to large ones, in my way of thinking this is a serious defect. Far and away the majority of us exist as members of very large groups. Our societies carry out complex tasks, that we rely upon for our existence. Hierarchy, in one form or another, is necessary for the organization of these tasks.
A major problem with both large scale economic theories and political theories is the near impossibility of setting up a controlled experiment to verify them. The wholesale implementation of political theories in the 20th century proved to be uniformly disastrous and bloody. Yet at the time, they seemed like very good ideas to most of the subjects of the experiments. Large numbers of people even believed the theories were based on scientific investigation.
None of the theories was implemented as originally conceived, or even as subsequently revised. In the event, people didn't behave as expected, so the theories were temporarily shelved in order to make people conform to them. They never came off the shelf again. The Nomenklatura continued to describe Marxism-Leninism, in its perverted Soviet form, as science. A large number of them actually believed it was.
The approach of the writers of the U.S. Constitution seemed promising at the time. They set out to modify an existing system with an eye to limiting abuse. Unfortunately, one major abuse was left unaddressed, which nearly destroyed the country altogether in the Civil War.
Also unfortunately, the economic and political system which the Founding Fathers hoped to improve has evolved today beyond the powers of their institutions to control it. The very institutions they devised to protect us have partly become tools of oppression--not totally, but to a dangerous extent, through the corrosive effects of greed.
But at least industrialized bloodshed was not provoked by the gradualist approach of the Constitution--then seen as revolutionary by the European elite, and by the founders themselves. Civil war was provoked by the existence of slavery, and the unbridgeable gap it created. The Founding Fathers well knew that if they tried to abolish slavery at once, the Civil War would have occurred in 1789, while the new republic was weak enough to be re-colonized.
Here in Texas, I see people every day on the street, and I'm related to a few whom I see only occasionally, who would take up arms to defend unfettered capitalism. Oddly enough, very few of them are capitalists themselves.
Furthermore, any attempt to install a system of education that I suppose you intend, would be forcibly resisted. It's hard enough to keep the popularly elected State Board of Education from injecting creationism into the curriculum. I see the repeated attempts to put in creationism not as some active capitalist plot, but as an expression of the will of a near majority, if not an actual majority.
Of course the creationist ideas and the mindless support of the idea of unfettered capitalism (though not its actuality) are the result both of a failure of education and of the rise of ideas that are inherently appealing to the maleducated. But the maleducated are willing to protect the idea of unfettered capitalism and their creationist beliefs by armed force.
These people aren't stupid. Far from it. They are very quick to perceive the implications of any subtle attempt to modify their beliefs, and they react vigorously. Sounds like the same is true where you live.
How do you propose to proceed?
RNJ
I'm pretty sure I've given a false impression in my last few posts. I'm not much of a pessimist. Actually my general demeanor is sunny and optimistic. I find the disparity between the way we generally picture ourselves, and the way we look from the perspective of a good age, to be pretty comical.
The near future looks pretty dangerous, but I'll only be around for another 20-odd years at most. Being retired, and having raised my children to mature independence, I'm pretty much done with what little real influence I will have on the future, for better or worse.
Our race has survived great disasters. I suspect it may even survive the self-induced ones it might experience in the near term. We might even learn something from tragedy. Or we may not.
I have written here as i talk to grown children or adolescent grandchildren. I remember my own youth well enough not to expect them to pay much attention. They rely more on their own experience than they do on someone else's bullsh1t. That's why we repeat our mistakes. That's why progress is possible.
When I regale them with my grandfatherly talks, I lament the tragedies we have brought upon ourselves, but generally I laugh a lot more at the human comedy.
Here you can't hear the laughter. Sorry for seeming so glum.
Now I will turn to encouraging Rick Perry to stay in the presidential race.  It is a faint hope, but still it is a hope, that he will eventually persuade Texans to vote for someone else for governor by his continued monumental show of ass on national TV.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 4 2012 23:51:06
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Hello Bill,
As much as your second example may fit your idea, there have been so many other of indigene tribes that know either little or no personal possession, while functioning very well as communities of mutual support and mental well-being.
- Some even not knowing aggression, refuting the superficial theory of humans "evil nature", as supported by willing "scientists" like Konrad Lorenz ( the old Nazi ).
The Soviet Union was capitalist on principle in that corruption actually allowed slicing off of collective funds ( appropriation of labour surplus value) and secret abundant personal misuse by privilegeds. ( Which I remember from experience in personal surrounding.)
In addition to that, it must always be taken into consideration how the Eastern Block was hampered economically by international restrictions / long levers in down haggling and the unproductive waste through imposed arming race ( as well as voluntary silly prestige competing projects like in space).
In sight of Cuba, I would claim that it remains remarkable how relatively well property is being distributed among the people there; how substantial supply like education and medical care are provided for free; and all that yet despite of a steady inimical entangling and sabotage of the USA.
To me a pretty impressive performance notwithstanding remaining societal imperfections.
( Arguably necessary to not succumb to sabotage and become colony again.)
While estimating what to be capitalist and what not, you seem to steadily overlook that capitalism is when production value of the people is being appropriated and misused on behalf of a profiteering minority.
Again: Where there is effective priority of accumulating capital possible and in place ( hence ripping off / setting back community interest), there is capitalism, no matter temporary official label of the polity.
But you appear to not be exactly bothered with people´s embezzled labour surplus value, welcoming such as official constitution anyway. Am I wrong with assuming so?
Hi Richard,
Your attentive, sober and largely thoughtful way of observing is impressing me once again.
If there had not existed a large society without effective oligrachy yet, would it equal practical impossibility in the same time?
I claim: Not.
I am not aware of proof examples, other than to certain degree the ancient Harappa, maybe Albania during its "socialist" times and named Cuba. Could be, current attempts in Venezuela and Bolivia being not too bad examples of aiming towards fairness too, but I have to yet be better informed about it, as there is not much available in the press other than obvious defaming and traditional slanting to none-capitalist attempt.
From what I can see there exists little of practical example with large societies, as you imply too.
I suppose that is because switches from nomade culture to settlings seem to have been followed by oligarchy soon.
That, as I suggest, because you need only little of SOB energy to control or ruin benign community / tradition.
All it seems to take is the gathering of henchmen whome you privilege by communities property, a bit of propaganda and setting up a mythology beneficial to your agenda.
Sabotaging and misusing is always so much easier than building up cooperation.
Thus, as you observed: "Many ... were that virtuous, but the sons of bitches won out in the end."
One of my cousins had a similar exprience with his company as in one of your examples where employees weren´t able to appreciate philanthropic policy. Which again mustn´t be too much surprising with staff that has grown up with common working situation of being detouched from company gains and having accustomed to rather withdraw oneself from work load and seek "refuge".
Then again, much of the cases you encountered appear exceptional to me, for them being of weapon and aircraft industry who are blessed with drain from states budgets. Where there is affluence, industry will drop more crumbs to the staff, as you could observe for instance during western Europes and US higtimes of stringing raw material from the Third World for next to nothing.
Now, that the cockaigne of resource is over, eventhough with profits often still affluent, you see the "generous" crumbs ever more rapidly disappearing and employee´s situation progressively returning to pre "economic miracle"-period conditions.
I am not competent to in detail estimate ways of organizing complex production, but remember how well it did to the automobile industry to decentralize; introducing small teams, allowing individual input of the staff and levelling hierarchy.
Oligarchy and hierarchy to my understanding are fundemtally different from each other, in that oligarchy comprises the exploitation of dependants, whereas with hierarchy the right to appropriate from subordinates isn´t explicitely included.
I am always interested to learn from bits like this: "The Founding Fathers well knew that if they tried to abolish slavery at once, the Civil War would have occurred in 1789, while the new republic was weak enough to be re-colonized."
Also like how you describe sheep mentality.
Liking to elaborate on your example, but times might be a bit hot.
- Only wanting to confirm what you say; in the same time noticing how surprisingly well factual ressource seems to be perceived among meanwhile obviously thirsty people here. First with a fine docu channel from last year, now with National Geopgraphic, despite the miserable dubbing with the local language. ( I always wished the stations would only once inspect how terribly their foreign speakers mess things up, overemphasizing and clowning things to death.) Folks seem to increasingly realize how standards compare, dropping otherwise popular soap operas and prop on benefit of worldly information when possible.
How do I propose to proceed? ...
Good and not too easy to answer question.
Information, information, information.
People must have the opportunity to zoom into authencity of their leadership, into actual crop up of their trade and where it goes in what ways.
There must be supply of scientifical basics, on economy, human being ( anthroplogy, psychology & behavioural science and ethics ). There should be pursue of intentional des- and misinformation. ( Only have a look at how manufacturers are allowed to fiddle with claims about quality, not to mention distortion and falsification of neocon media etc.)
As educational institutions and media are in the hands of the beneficiaries themselves, you see little to nothing of untouched contents and recognizable coherences; [ and it seems as if the ( yet largely free) internet could be a way of gradually forcing through transparency].
Having said that, there are very remarkable exceptions to be found like the teachings of for instance Prof. Götz Werner, Dr. Benediktus Hardorp or Prof. Senf who path us stringent analysis and economical ways to humane economizing and society.
Also there exist very outstanding practical examples to learn from like said Isthmus Engineering and the ICA behind it.
I think listening / reading of progressive minds like these / spreading valuable information is the way to go.
The problem however is that new horizonts take their time, while we are having no headroom left ecologically.
As it seems much of the evolutions crown will have gone extinct until future paradigm change.
There is progress with common sense out there, and the more the radical profiteering minority is creaming off, the faster common sense seems to be realizing where and how societal feign and draining off occures. But it is yet all happening much too slowly.
BTW, there was a headline today, according to which a single one of aforementioned blue fin tunas at 269 kg was sold for 566,000.00 Euro in the worlds biggest fishmarket Tsukiji in Tokio.
Imagine the pecuniary affluence companies like Mitsubishi alone are squezzing out of natures freely delivered resource, and why theylike heads will definitly be promoting and defending capitalism while they are rigorously mining and destroying our habitat.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 5 2012 14:52:57
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3460
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
Again, Ruphus, your error in logic is you misunderstand both the nature and definition of Capitalism (and, apparently, other economic systems as well) and apply your very own "Ruphus" definition, equating it with any system that accumulates capital and exploits people and resources. Ironically (and I'm sure unintentionally), your example of the Soviet Union being "capitalist on principle in that corruption actually allowed slicing off of collective funds ( appropriation of labour surplus value) and secret abundant personal misuse by privilegeds," proves my point that human beings subvert economic systems. No serious historian, political scientist, or economist would call the Soviet Union capitalist. Most would agree it was a Socialist Command Economy. Yet you call it Capitalist, apparently because it accumulated capital and "corruption actually allowed slicing off of collective funds...and secret abundant personal misuse by privilegeds." This activity, of course, was executed by the leadership and the "nomenklatura," hardly Capitalists, and human beings all!
Ruphus, every economic system accumulates "capital" (whether capital is defined as industrial, monetary, or material for primitive societies' tool-making, hunting weapons, agricultural implements, etc. It all falls under the term "capital.") And it is preposterous to claim that the Soviet Union (or any other country) was Capitalist because "corruption actually allowed slicing off of collective funds." You seem to be so focused on denigrating Capitalism that you are willing to suspend your obvious intelligence by blindly defining any system that exploits people and resources, and tolerates corruption, as "Capitalist." To reach such a conclusion requires intellectual apostasy and a rejection of history.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 5 2012 16:25:21
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3432
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
Back to the pigs and the male ego for a moment.
Europeans may be accustomed to wild pigs as part of the remaining bits of relatively undisturbed ecosystem, like the Black Forest. I'm unfamiliar with the processes that keep them in balance there.
But pigs are not native to America. Humans brought them here and turned them loose. It was a habit of exploring Europeans to do so. When they planned to come back they could kill and eat the offspring of the pigs, who were quite adaptable--and tasty.
Wild pigs in America may produce a few benefits like tilling the soil. But the same behavior destabilizes topsoil leading to severe damage from erosion. Wild pigs spread diseases among other wildlife. They eat rabbits, opossums, the eggs of ground nesting birds, and other wildlife resources. They destroy forests by stripping the bark from trees. The list goes on at length.
Humans are responsible for all this damage. We brought the pigs here and turned them loose to wreak havoc. We eliminated predators who might have kept the pigs in check. It's our responsibility to limit all the damage we have brought on. We're not succeeding very well, if at all.
Turning to the male ego, here's the point I was tying to make. Without reproduction, life doesn't exist. The male ego, and its female counterpart may be seen as human adaptations to the universal mandate to reproduce. If the male and female egos were eliminated, some other adaptation would have to emerge to ensure reproduction, or the race would die out rapidly. That was the point I was clumsily attempting to make.
There may be life forms that limit reproduction with no enforced limitation from the environment, or competition from other life forms, or inherent limitations of their own, but if such exist they are hardly the norm. Most life forms reproduce until they come up against some barrier.
The stray dog mother that Ruphus mentioned may furnish an instructive example. Perhaps Earth will starve large numbers of her most successful offspring because she can no longer afford to feed us.
Maybe the remainder will learn to live more harmoniously with their environment, the way the North Americans seemed to do before the Europeans showed up. I say "seemed to do" because many scientists attribute the extinction of the North American mega-fauna to the contemporary appearance of hunters from Asia.
The Classic Maya had managed to wipe themselves out through war and environmental destruction centuries before the Europeans arrived. Their descendants lived harmoniously with the forest for many centuries until the arrival of cattle ranches to raise beef for McDonalds.
"Eating yourself out of house and home" is an old saying in English--or is it Scottish? At any rate, I heard it from my Scottish grandmother.
But our civilization has been fun while it lasted, hasn't it?
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 5 2012 21:33:03
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Bill,
I judge economical methods by their final practical function, not label.
But that aside:
Your point of view appears to be following established exegesis, which stricktly omitts the consideration of labour surplus value / more even its expropriation, and if forced to deal with such item, because it being mentioned ( as rarely as such may be happening ) will retract to the traditional assertion that appropriation had to be happening anyway due to "human nature".
Hence, suggesting to let there be capitalist principle from the get go.
Dismissing of such an essential economical factor and its relevance on social and cultural conditions, however cannot be ways of a sincere societal discussion.
Precondition for humane society is that labour surplus value has to be enacted and its inalienable being listed as the first human right that it is. It should be cited in any constitution that´s to sincerely be base of a democracy. ( Just as direct voting and priority on transparency should.)
Let us have such humane basics and then see how "human nature" actually looks like with people who are allowed to grow up with their drives matched.
After all, you wouldn´t expect insights on natural behaviour by observing animals locked in a cage, would you.
It should help the discourse if you could realize to have been taking reactionary cultural condition for human´s natural characteristics.
Fellow Richard, 
German forests aren´t really that much in balance. Quite some part of the precincts are being leased out to wealthy folks who like to play hunter, and in the same time are supposed to keep named balance. However, they won´t follow the handicaps, because of silly vanity that has them wanting to shoot deer with as much antler endings as possible / sparing much of the species. The result have been severe damages to the woods since decades.
Eventhough remembering long discussions with my brother in law ( who rents forest for hunting too ), I have no clue of how they deal with boars. All I know is that we are having reports on boar overpopulation too and even urbanization phenomenons. Garden owners in suburbs complaining.
In concern of re-establishing wildlife and predators we are seeing the same dyed-in-the-wool farmer / rancher mentality like you do in the USA.
Just like the fools who shoot the buffalo and wild horse herds as soon as they leave national parks, we are seeing same hystery in Germany as soon as a single wolf or bear is seen.
So you´ll rather see North-American raccoons in the Black Forest ( seen one myself there ) than wolves, let alone bears anytime soon.
Lux seems just small enough / tolerated and is currently released in the southern forest without farmers protest.
As of late I hear scientific voices who interpet that there was no such thing like destruction through strange species immigration / remarking that species fluctuation would have always been happening, and with climate change anyway.
But I´m with you and the traditional view, in that foerign species can and do ruin eco systems.
Besides, have you heard about the rapid genetical morphing into boar that pigs show in the US landscapes?
They appear to change shape within only a few generations and to become huge boars amazingly fast ( when food resource is ample ).
"Perhaps Earth will starve large numbers of her most successful offspring because she can no longer afford to feed us."
AIDS and upcoming / reoccuring epidemic germs like resistant TBC, hepatitis, cholera, pest and mutating viruses from there appear like ecological defence to me. Funds projects against like ignorant benevolence that would better be invested causally.
"I say "seemed to do" because many scientists attribute the extinction of the North American mega-fauna to the contemporary appearance of hunters from Asia."
Again a very intersting bit of information!
Until some years ago, common theory was that Inuit ( originally steming from Japan) had entered the American continent about 12 000 years ago ( and became the natives ). - And once again question would be why Asians show specially cruel against nature.
However, according to younger findings American Natives stem from populations from all over the world, who started immigrating already as far as 40 000 years ago.
But as you say, among the over 200 tribes alone in North-America there used to be very different cultures. Some badly dismissing the environment. For instance driving buffalo herds over cliffs, though needing only a few for consumption / carelessly and numb leaving behind masses of rotting cadavers.
Still, the majority of their cultures justifiedly serve as exemplary to us.
There also used to be massive pollution with European cultures in the bronce age while mining zinc. Yet, thelike examples not enough in place to disprove a rather conscious being in human´s ancient history.
Ricardo,
"Poor people know they can't feed their kids but have them anyway."
And then they e.g. poach endangered species, claiming that they need doing so to feed their offspring.
There are projects like from last year, when countries enhabiting snow leopards sent represenatives to meet up and confer about educational measures, and compensation for eventual cattle loss to residents.
Most efficient meanwhile should be changes on Third World economical systems, to enable provision for old age. That and making folks understand how relevant intact eco systems are to themselves ( with for instance prospective income through tourism that wants to see untouched wilderness and widlife).
Further, other educational measures like making African Massai dropping their tradition of amasssing cattle for matter of prestige ( which is spreading TBC among buffalos and finally among lions ), etc. pp.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 6 2012 9:12:56
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3460
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
Your point of view appears to be following established exegesis, which stricktly omitts the consideration of labour surplus value
Ruphus, speaking of "following established exegesis," your focus on "labor suprlus value," from Marx's Labor Theory of Value, is about as "established" as one can get, from a Marxist point of view. It is neither anti-establishment nor particularly innovative. It dates from the original Marx, and it is still a core principle of die-hard Marxists.
In any case, Ruphus, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Frankly, I think we (I include myself!) have just about run this topic into the ground. Happy New Year!
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 6 2012 14:01:59
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3460
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
wishful thinking....so far education is not helping defeat the male ego's knack for causing damage thanks to "matters of prestige". Don't want to leave out the driving force behind it all...females. I remember a show about some african group that had the practice of trading a bunch of cattle for a bride.
Well-stated, Ricardo. Another example of male ego and material objects creating "prestige" is my example, posted earlier, of the Kwakiutl Indians of the Pacific Northwest. Their "potlatch" ceremony, where the one who gives away the most material possessions gains the most prestige and power is another. The belief that primitive, indigenous societies are somehow immune from gaining prestige and power through material possessions is a myth. When you look into most primitive, indigenous societies, you will find that they are every bit as dependent on prestige through material possessions (although they may differ from our own) as any advanced society, Western or Eastern.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 6 2012 16:55:29
|
|
XXX
Posts: 4400
Joined: Apr. 14 2005
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
Ruphus, every economic system accumulates "capital" (whether capital is defined as industrial, monetary, or material for primitive societies' tool-making, hunting weapons, agricultural implements, etc. It all falls under the term "capital.")
In Capitalism it is common to value everything with a certain amount of money (and im pretty sure in the business world it IS done), so it is ok to describe capital as an x amount of money which is supposed to return and y amount of money. Thats already a difference to your tribal societies, or even communism (lol), which simply are not meant to accumulate or even trade capital. In capitalism wealth is accumulated through capital, ie money. You can try to accumulate iron, apples and industrial complexes, but that wont make you rich unless they have a worth which you can measure in MONEY.
It is clear to me that since most people do not own capital (at least a critical mass of it which would make it profitable to invest), capital has always a negative connotation. That is the reason i guess, why the defenders of capitalism feel the need to argue that capital has always existed and will always exist.
_____________________________
Фламенко
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 6 2012 21:32:02
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3432
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to XXX)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Deniz
In Capitalism it is common to value everything with a certain amount of money (and im pretty sure in the business world it IS done), so it is ok to describe capital as an x amount of money which is supposed to return and y amount of money. Thats already a difference to your tribal societies, or even communism (lol), which simply are not meant to accumulate or even trade capital. In capitalism wealth is accumulated through capital, ie money. You can try to accumulate iron, apples and industrial complexes, but that wont make you rich unless they have a worth which you can measure in MONEY.
Tribal societies vary in their accumulation of capital and trade in it. In the traditional parts of the Marshall Islands, for example, significant amounts of capital accrue to the owner only through inheritance. The society is divided into three strata, dri-jerbal, alab and iroij. The dri-jerbal are subordinate to the alabs, who are in turn subordinate to the iroij. Land is very scarce in the tiny coral atolls, and land forms the chief source of capital, although thatched huts, canoes, fishnets and minor tools such as cooking utensils also form part of the capital stock. Along with the land go the plentiful coconut and breadfruit trees and other minor food sources. Agriculture forms only a very small part of the traditional Marshallese economy. Fishing grounds in the lagoons are of course held in common.
In the traditional part of the Marshalls essentially the only way to acquire land is through inheritance. There is only a fixed supply of land and somebody owns every square inch of it, at each of the three levels of society. The dri-jerbal owes tribute to his alab, who in turn owes tribute to his iroij, all based on land tenure. The iroij is the land owner, in modern parlance, but the alabs and dri-jerbal have rights of tenancy, subject to the adjudication of the iroij.
Interestingly enough, land tenure passes in the female line, as do titles of nobility. The iroij is the man who marries the highest ranking woman, the alab is the man who marries the senior woman in the bwij, though class distinctions are practically always maintained in marriages.
There are quite a few iroij, sometimes two or three on one of the larger atolls. There are two, or sometimes only one iroij-alap-alap, the highest chiefs. However the degree of allegiance to these highest chiefs varies over time, depending upon their popularity and political skill. During one generation the iroij-alap-alap may be only a ceremonial figure, in another generation he may wield dominant political power, as did the first President of the Republic of Marshall Islands, Amata Kabua.
Given the complete lack of social mobility in the traditional Marshallese society, the expansion of a personal stock of capital is essentially impossible. This wasn't true in the old days, however. Then the iroij waged war almost constantly, and to the victor went the spoils of capital.
Other tribal societies do accumulate capital peacefully, and pursue it diligently. The Masai and their cattle have already been mentioned. I would add the people of highland New Guinea, where agricultural land may be held in common, but pigs are private property, and form the currency of a complex economy. Among both the Masai and the New Guineans, as far as I know, very few families, if any are without livestock, but sizable disparities exist in the population of family herds.
Of course, the existence of capital accumulation in tribal societies doesn't excuse the abuse of this practice in large scale industrial societies.
On the other hand, the accumulation of capital in industrialized societies is not automatically an abuse. It depends on how it is accumulated, and the use to which it is put.
For example, in an industrialized communist (with a lower-case "c") society, capital must be accumulated to build roads, bridges and dams, to build factories, etc. In theory this capital belongs to everybody. In fact it is controlled and employed by an administrative segment of society. The administrative class could in theory be made responsive to the public at large through elections and a culture of transparency. Unfortunately, such a society has yet to appear on a large scale.
The Chinese have given up. One of the chief problems they face in their transition to capitalism under a one-party dictatorship is the hangover of corruption from state ownership (that is, "party ownership") and the centrally planned economy. This suggests that the concentration of power in a centrally planned economy may be a bit too tempting.
However a 35-person company functioned as an egalitarian group, organized for mutual benefit, during the time I was part of it, and it appears still to work that way, having grown to 50 people.
There was an episode when the presidency, rotating among senior members of the company, fell into the hands of a "control freak". They got rid of him after about three years. He lost the respect of his peers when he thought it proper to set himself up in power over them. They were a sufficiently cohesive group, knowing and respecting one another, to unseat him fairly promptly when his behavior violated the group's ethics. The resultant humiliation forced him to leave the company.
Dictators of larger groups, who consolidate their control by assembling a set of equally ruthless cronies, seem peculiarly impervious to humiliation.
In large organizations like Lockheed, Boeing and Raytheon the actions of the administrative class were seen as acceptable, or even praiseworthy to almost all employees, though the great majority at lower levels had no voice in administration. Of course there are numerous examples where the administration of a company is corrupt, incompetent, greedy, or subject to other human failings. Employees are free to leave if they don't like it, but in most of the industrialized world, unless they were willing to start their own company, as I did for a while, the only effective choice is another organization run on the capitalist model.
As a recognized technical expert, it required nearly no capital to start my consulting business, which was fortunate, because I had nearly no capital at the time.
In theory, of course, a race of philosopher-kings might arise in an industrialized society, accumulate capital and employ it with complete justice. Hasn't happened yet.
The hope in "capitalist" societies (though no large-scale purely capitalist societies exist) is that a set of countervailing forces, such as the accumulation of capital, the unionization of labor, government regulation, the socialization of medicine and retirement, and so on, might be balanced to produce a fair and reasonably egalitarian distribution of goods and lifestyle. The ideal balance has yet to be achieved in any industrialized society to date, though a handful look much better than the others.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 6 2012 23:51:45
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3432
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
In sight of Cuba, I would claim that it remains remarkable how relatively well property is being distributed among the people there; how substantial supply like education and medical care are provided for free; and all that yet despite of a steady inimical entangling and sabotage of the USA.
To me a pretty impressive performance notwithstanding remaining societal imperfections.
Ruphus
Yes, indeed. A remarkably egalitarian, generous and popular dictatorship. Popular, that is, except with the people it imprisons for dissent.
The large influx of European capital and money from tourism haven't sparked prosperity in the centrally planned economy, but people seem willing to put up with a relatively low standard of living, as long as essentially everyone is seen to share in it.
The continuing U.S. embargo has some restraining effect on the economy, but has become totally ineffective in impeding the flow of capital, trade and tourism from other countries.
People still remember the dictatorship of U.S. organized crime, and no doubt see the present dictatorship as a notable improvement. It is far more egalitarian, and the economic situation of the working class is improved, at the expense of eliminating the former economic middle class, who now run a sizable fraction of the businesses in Miami. The exile of the old ruling class is bound to be seen in a positive light.
It remains to be seen what will happen when the old guard finally leaves the stage. It should be interesting.
RNJ
((O.T}: actually (O.T.)^2: My only personal experience with the Cuban economy, after a trip there in 1954 as a 16-year old with my uncle, has been in cigars. I used to smuggle them into the U.S. on my return from Europe during the 1960s--early 1970s. Once a grumpy and menacing U.S. customs agent at JFK Airport in New York came across a handful in my suitcase.
"What the hell are these?" he demanded rudely.
"Cuban cigars."
He swiped up the handful of stogies and thrust them into my hands. "You're supposed to put them in your overcoat pocket, dummy!" he growled, and went on rummaging through my underwear.
The quality eventually became so bad I quit smuggling and started smoking Jamaican cigars--one per week with a weekly glass of Cognac, watching the sunset on Friday evenings. Within a very few years the Dominican, Honduran and Nicaraguan companies set up by Cuban exiles captured most of the world market, and my business along with it.
Apparently the Soviets who dominated the Cuban economy at that time had poor taste in cigars. Or else, sabotaging the Cuban cigar industry was perhaps the CIA's only successful operation in the country.
The infusion of Spanish capital into Cuban tobacco growing and cigar making during the 1990s resurrected the business. Cuba is once again in the front rank, but they have yet to reestablish their former pre-eminence in quality.
Out of habit I will buy a box of Montecristos or Cohibas when I am in Europe--half a year's supply--but when I get back to my other stock, I realize it's really not worth the trouble to smuggle the puros habanos, unless it's just to thumb my nose at the embargo.))
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 7 2012 2:58:35
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Happy New Year! (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Dear Bill,
I don´t know whether I am a Marxist or not, as I havn´t ever made it through the whole of his works ( you´d need a super brain for it ), but I´m glad that there is a category for you that I can be filed in.
My inner quest on wordly matters started at very early age with the experience of daily inconsistency. And from what I can tell I must be a Reichian before all, as Wilhelm Reich analyzed socio-economical background systematically, comprehensively and profound like no other. To me he has been the most outstanding and potentially relevant genus in history ( without disrespect to adorable thinkers and scientists before and after him ).
Too bad that a former friend of his daughter misused given trust to turn his heritage into her personal cash cow, undermining the spread of his insights and social work. ( "Human nature", as you might put it.)
Which however is not to say that I wasn´t thankful for Marx´ illumination of labour surplus value and its expropriation, the collosal drag of humanity and now of our world as a whole.
If people were allowed to realize its enormous material value and suppression that it means, and how its countless consequences do with ethics, living standards, community, intellect and psyche, capitalism would be over in a historical blink.
Ricardo,
I think you are right with estimating traditional jumbo mumbo as hard to overcome. Yet, informational approach is the only way to change, and it seems quite respectable what some individually corresponding institutions or private engagements as example have achieved already with reducing archaic customs in several cultural spheres.
In repect of the male ego, I think it should be considered that it will typically dominate the less adequate attention, matching of drives and backing up there is in youth. Worst of all in households with macho father-figures ( self-completing cycle through generations). It has the same mental source of non-fulfillment as pathological greed.
Correspondingly, back formation can be observed with cultural change.
Hi Deniz,
To my understanding it appears not really decisive whether appropriation be in form of capital or in general form of property.
Currency or other place holders for value, considered discretely are only practical means, that should stay practical in a fair society too.
( Naturally, symbols help with keeping dispossession abstract and unobtrusive, but their practicability would stay elsewise useful with an economy of fair trade.)
KMMI77,
quote:
ORIGINAL: KMMI77
Perhaps ownership could be made to disappear through technology? The desire to hoard could become pointless.
Technology might be developing into terrific options, indeed.
Only imagine nano scanners and "plotters".
You scan the desired object and it will be reproduced molecule by molecule. All you´ll need would be raw material like from the trash can.
Next, people could be exchanging scanner files over the internet like: `I made a file of the watch you desire. You got one of the GPS module I need. Let´s swap´.
At sometime it could even include bigger items like vehicles etc., and possibly even organic items like food, who knows.
Largely improved obtain should indeed matter and significantly lessen options to enforce the economical treadmill. Undoubtedly leading to quite an emancipation and much more adequate upbringing conditions.
It would turn around the classical attempt of gaining new economocal conditions through education / mental change, by going from new economical conditions to social / mental improvement. Which I personally would expect less amount of progress from, but in the long run it might be resulting quite philanthropically too.
- With a theoretically given ecological headroom.
-
One could claim that individual nano reproduction would be halting further technological progress ( and consider other side aspects like of the contemporary copyright issue ); arguably so. But that would be another discussion.
Hi Richard,
quote:
In theory, of course, a race of philosopher-kings might arise in an industrialized society, accumulate capital and employ it with complete justice. Hasn't happened yet.
That could be those future thinking robots. ;O/
Thelike position should not be allowed. Just for the fact, that incidence can always occure, even in a humane culture ( and be it just for an hypothetical genetic defect of an individual ).
Not today in given practical ways, nor in a future situation.
quote:
The hope in "capitalist" societies (though no large-scale purely capitalist societies exist) is that a set of countervailing forces, such as the accumulation of capital, the unionization of labor, government regulation, the socialization of medicine and retirement, and so on, might be balanced to produce a fair and reasonably egalitarian distribution of goods and lifestyle. The ideal balance has yet to be achieved in any industrialized society to date, though a handful look much better than the others.
How much capitalism could there be in the first place, without provided labour surplus value appropriation?
No humane society will conduct anything with capital as votive.
Why at all should we cling to something that has brought us to the brink?
If tinkerers would had been comparably anemic in thinking, like a cling to out of all capitalism, our wheels would be quadrangular today.
-
In sight of Cuba:
quote:
It remains to be seen what will happen when the old guard finally leaves the stage. It should be interesting.
I fear it will be just the same western instigation and mafia´s clearing away we´ve seen throughout the whole former Eastern Block.
In regard of China:
Deng Siao Ping is probaly swirling in his grave. How he could not foresee hundreds of billionaires and their inevitably determined corruptioning, only shows his limited thinking abilities.
Had he and his entourage ever seriously be reading Marx ( right, for surplus value, Bill ;O) Chinese people would had seen so much more benefit of becoming the worlds workshop that they meanwhile present. Not only would the major part of the proceeds not had ended up in the hands of a few, but also be used to prevent the environmental havoc that came with the new market.
As of late the Chinese government proclaims substantial protective measures for the environment. Let´s see if thelike can actually be introduced, yet before yuan pharaos will be taking over.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 7 2012 7:49:56
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.1386719 secs.
|
Printable Version
