M
MisterMike
Guest
And the alternative to Capitalism issss???????
Farenheit 9/11
- Thread starter michaeledward
- Start date
Cruentus
Grandmaster
2 comments:
The alternative to capitalism is..........
Something that hasn't been invented yet, I believe. I think that we need to think outside of the box. The belief seems to be, "Capitalism ain't perfect, but it is better then the alternatives out there!" The problem is (outside of the fact that most who say that know very little about the alternatives) that capitalism in our current system is NOT working. Not by itself. Money continues to float to the top, and the top gets smaller and smaller in terms of who's up there. We have violated certian rules that would make capitalism work, such as the rule of "healthy competition." "Capitalism" under are current system really means "oligarchy" and "faciest republic." "Capitalism" at the rate we are going will be the demise of our country. So, we need an alternative, and real soon.
But, the alternative doesn't have to be "communism" or "socialism" or "totalitarianism" or any other preconcieved notion. I think we need to think outside the box. I'd like to see a mix, a sort of "social-capitalist-libritarianism" if you will. I think that laws that regulate the people should be as libritarian as possible. I think that business should be capitalist, and should be interested in making money, but that Government should protect us from corporate oligarchies who violate the capitalistic ideals by fixing the competition for themselves. I think that Government should protect us from businesses hurting us and where we live, rather then protecting us from ourselves, while letting business do whatever they want. I think that the government should take an interest in society (but not in a regulatory sense), and should standardize things like living wages and healthcare.
None of this is completely communist or socialist, but it isn't completely libertarianism or capitalism either.
None of this can happened overnight, but some of it needs to start happening real soon. Otherwise, we as people of this great nation will completely lose our control to a social elite, and we will become slaves for them. We are a lot closer to this then most recognize, I believe.
The other thing that I need to address is the idea of, "I came from nothing and I worked my *** off to get to where I am. Why should I give freebee's to someone who isn't willing to do the same!? I know people who are in poverty, and they work hard and are handling it just fine!" True, there are some that are simply just lazy. But, opportunity doesn't knock on everyones door. And the poorer your are, and less of a "fit" you are to what would be considered "social elite," the less opportunities you'll find. Some just don't get the opportunities, become psychologically defeated, and never "make it." Then you look at them on the street or in their trashed home while they live off wealfare and think, "If only they weren't so lazy!" The thought doesn't occur to most that if you had been defeated as much as that person has, then maybe you'd be just as lazy too.
Talent, skill, intelligence, and personal drive is worth nothing without opportunity. Some who worked very hard to get to where they are forget that it took opportunity to get them there. Yet, opportunities are more and more being "fixed," meaning less and less for the average person.
It is true, you may have worked hard and overcome a lot to get where you are. But, shouldn't things be getting easier for the american family rather then harder? The illusion is that things are getting easier, but this is absolutely not the case. The living wage is less every year. The average family could afford the american dream with one parent working, now it takes 2. How some of you are so brainwashed that you don't see that this is a problem is beyond me.
I want there to be more opportunities for our kids, not less. I want it to be easier for our kids to succeed, not more difficult. I think we should be working towards this ideal. People whould not have to bust *** and cut throats to "make it," no matter how noble it sounds.
Just my take on things related to the conversation; not directed at anyone in particular.
:asian:
The alternative to capitalism is..........
Something that hasn't been invented yet, I believe. I think that we need to think outside of the box. The belief seems to be, "Capitalism ain't perfect, but it is better then the alternatives out there!" The problem is (outside of the fact that most who say that know very little about the alternatives) that capitalism in our current system is NOT working. Not by itself. Money continues to float to the top, and the top gets smaller and smaller in terms of who's up there. We have violated certian rules that would make capitalism work, such as the rule of "healthy competition." "Capitalism" under are current system really means "oligarchy" and "faciest republic." "Capitalism" at the rate we are going will be the demise of our country. So, we need an alternative, and real soon.
But, the alternative doesn't have to be "communism" or "socialism" or "totalitarianism" or any other preconcieved notion. I think we need to think outside the box. I'd like to see a mix, a sort of "social-capitalist-libritarianism" if you will. I think that laws that regulate the people should be as libritarian as possible. I think that business should be capitalist, and should be interested in making money, but that Government should protect us from corporate oligarchies who violate the capitalistic ideals by fixing the competition for themselves. I think that Government should protect us from businesses hurting us and where we live, rather then protecting us from ourselves, while letting business do whatever they want. I think that the government should take an interest in society (but not in a regulatory sense), and should standardize things like living wages and healthcare.
None of this is completely communist or socialist, but it isn't completely libertarianism or capitalism either.
None of this can happened overnight, but some of it needs to start happening real soon. Otherwise, we as people of this great nation will completely lose our control to a social elite, and we will become slaves for them. We are a lot closer to this then most recognize, I believe.
The other thing that I need to address is the idea of, "I came from nothing and I worked my *** off to get to where I am. Why should I give freebee's to someone who isn't willing to do the same!? I know people who are in poverty, and they work hard and are handling it just fine!" True, there are some that are simply just lazy. But, opportunity doesn't knock on everyones door. And the poorer your are, and less of a "fit" you are to what would be considered "social elite," the less opportunities you'll find. Some just don't get the opportunities, become psychologically defeated, and never "make it." Then you look at them on the street or in their trashed home while they live off wealfare and think, "If only they weren't so lazy!" The thought doesn't occur to most that if you had been defeated as much as that person has, then maybe you'd be just as lazy too.
Talent, skill, intelligence, and personal drive is worth nothing without opportunity. Some who worked very hard to get to where they are forget that it took opportunity to get them there. Yet, opportunities are more and more being "fixed," meaning less and less for the average person.
It is true, you may have worked hard and overcome a lot to get where you are. But, shouldn't things be getting easier for the american family rather then harder? The illusion is that things are getting easier, but this is absolutely not the case. The living wage is less every year. The average family could afford the american dream with one parent working, now it takes 2. How some of you are so brainwashed that you don't see that this is a problem is beyond me.
I want there to be more opportunities for our kids, not less. I want it to be easier for our kids to succeed, not more difficult. I think we should be working towards this ideal. People whould not have to bust *** and cut throats to "make it," no matter how noble it sounds.
Just my take on things related to the conversation; not directed at anyone in particular.
:asian:
M
MisterMike
Guest
Thanks Paul. I think Capitalism can work but there are checks needed to protect things like the worker, the consumer, the environment, competition. But I do not think these are faults of Capitalism, just the people involved.
heretic888
Senior Master
Hrmmmmm....
I think a useful analogy would be comparing our current economic problems to the symptoms of a disease. So you've taken care of the symptoms, no more coughing. Now what?? The disease is still there, and it can all come back.
The "disease", of course, is what is causing all these external, socioeconomic problems in the first place. Well, its all pretty ideological --- not enough people in world actually give a damn. There's not enough people operating from a universal, worldcentric circle of care --- they only care about them and what's theirs.
It'd be liking trying to have separation of church and state in a country where the vast majority of the people believe in a sociocentric theocracy. The outward, social forms will end up dead-ending --- because they aren't culturally supported by the values of the people.
As long as people only give a damn about them and what's theirs --- this stuff is gonna fail. Period.
Laterz.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
Tulisan is dead right. It's not that capitalism is bad, it's that we no longer have capitalism in the US. We are approaching facism, where government and big business are inseparable, and the rest of us don't stand a chance.Tulisan said:
Our President comes from the oil industry (Bush Energy), and is a life long friend of the Saud family of Saudi Arabia. Our Vice President still draws $1M/year from his former employer, Halliburton, one of the major beneficiaries of OUR tax money in Iraq. Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton, who sets environmental policy, was a lobbyist for loggers, miners, ranchers, and land developers. Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman, who sets food safety policy, was on the Board of Directors of Calgene, a biotech division of Monsanto, which produces bio-engineered foods and opposes food labeling. Secretary of Health & Human Services Tommy Thompson has corporate connections to Merck Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Pharmaceuticals, and the Philip Morris Corporation. And the list goes on and on.
Do you think these people are looking out for OUR benefit? WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Just to see if'n I can't tick off EVERYBODY...
The argument that capitalism would work fine if it just had a few checks and balances is nifty. That's what I'd argue for: a socialist economy, "mixed," with free enterprise at one level, but a managed economy for all the large-scale stuff.
The problem with acheiving such an economy is that it is fundamentally contrary to the essential nature of capitalism--which, simply put, is an economic system that has evolved around the notion, "greed is good." In capitalist economies, the logic is that human nature and desire drive one person against another, that the best way to cut down on direct violence is to introduce a mediating agent--capital--and that it should be a completely-unlimited case of dog-eat-dog after that. There are no limits whatsoever--no moral, ethical, religious, familial, social limits whatsoever--to that competition.
In the past, hangovers from previous eras--the notion of benign feudalism, for example, which persists in the idea that a good owner takes care of His people; the notion of religion, which says radix malorum est cupiditas--puts some checks on the economic logic. Those checks are in the process of disappearing: what we are left with is "pure," economic competition.
Marx, in brief, was absolutely right in terms of his analysis of the nature of capitalist society. It is why there's all the complaining about the disappearance of values, religion, the family, America, etc.--in capitalist society, everything that is solid melts into air," which is to say that it is rewriten/recoded in the terms of capital, of money in all its forms. Nothing--nothing else at all--survives, if capitalism is taken to its logical limit. Marx noted the, "werewolf hunger of capitalism for blood;" if he had had the terminology, he would've called capitalism a, "retrovirus," because the system simply translates everything into its own genetic language.
If you think capitalism is more, or that capitalism cares about people, or that capitalism cares about America, you do not understand capitalism. You also aren't noticing reality, because presently what we see is the disappearance of all sorts of, "American values," because the economic system we've created is recoding all of them. But, hell, you can get this from at least twenty-two Springsteen songs.
The conspiracy theories about Big Corporations and the CIA, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Area 51, Bush and the Arabs, whatever, are to my mind simply smokescreens--or, better, surface phenomena. The notions of "good," capitalism, at best, can only reflect wishful thinking and occasional decencies oln the parts of individual compaanies and bosses. If things keep going as they are, these will pretty much be washed away.
Rich, I'm sorry, but if you look back at the biography you wrote--especially if you consider the fact that globally speaking, you and I are among the most privileged--you'll see exactly what I'm talking about here. The system of the economy simply is not interested in you, me, or anybody else, except as workers and consumers and administrators.
And MM, well, this should produce a rant. Fine. 1. Problem with the Soviet Union is that after the first ten years, they slumped into a fascist bureaucracy stacked on top of a badly-managed economy--the worst of both worlds. 2. The question is whether or not Marx's ideas lead to horrors like Stalin inevitably--which is why analyses of "race," and, "gender," become important, because one of those essential flaws seems to center around white boy thinking. 3. For Marx, capitalism will eventually evolve into something better, just as feudalism evolved into something better.
But if anybody thinks that a few rules and regs and good thoughts and church atendances and uncovering of alien astronauts will fix the Ststem or Bring the System Down, they're dreamin'.
The argument that capitalism would work fine if it just had a few checks and balances is nifty. That's what I'd argue for: a socialist economy, "mixed," with free enterprise at one level, but a managed economy for all the large-scale stuff.
The problem with acheiving such an economy is that it is fundamentally contrary to the essential nature of capitalism--which, simply put, is an economic system that has evolved around the notion, "greed is good." In capitalist economies, the logic is that human nature and desire drive one person against another, that the best way to cut down on direct violence is to introduce a mediating agent--capital--and that it should be a completely-unlimited case of dog-eat-dog after that. There are no limits whatsoever--no moral, ethical, religious, familial, social limits whatsoever--to that competition.
In the past, hangovers from previous eras--the notion of benign feudalism, for example, which persists in the idea that a good owner takes care of His people; the notion of religion, which says radix malorum est cupiditas--puts some checks on the economic logic. Those checks are in the process of disappearing: what we are left with is "pure," economic competition.
Marx, in brief, was absolutely right in terms of his analysis of the nature of capitalist society. It is why there's all the complaining about the disappearance of values, religion, the family, America, etc.--in capitalist society, everything that is solid melts into air," which is to say that it is rewriten/recoded in the terms of capital, of money in all its forms. Nothing--nothing else at all--survives, if capitalism is taken to its logical limit. Marx noted the, "werewolf hunger of capitalism for blood;" if he had had the terminology, he would've called capitalism a, "retrovirus," because the system simply translates everything into its own genetic language.
If you think capitalism is more, or that capitalism cares about people, or that capitalism cares about America, you do not understand capitalism. You also aren't noticing reality, because presently what we see is the disappearance of all sorts of, "American values," because the economic system we've created is recoding all of them. But, hell, you can get this from at least twenty-two Springsteen songs.
The conspiracy theories about Big Corporations and the CIA, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Area 51, Bush and the Arabs, whatever, are to my mind simply smokescreens--or, better, surface phenomena. The notions of "good," capitalism, at best, can only reflect wishful thinking and occasional decencies oln the parts of individual compaanies and bosses. If things keep going as they are, these will pretty much be washed away.
Rich, I'm sorry, but if you look back at the biography you wrote--especially if you consider the fact that globally speaking, you and I are among the most privileged--you'll see exactly what I'm talking about here. The system of the economy simply is not interested in you, me, or anybody else, except as workers and consumers and administrators.
And MM, well, this should produce a rant. Fine. 1. Problem with the Soviet Union is that after the first ten years, they slumped into a fascist bureaucracy stacked on top of a badly-managed economy--the worst of both worlds. 2. The question is whether or not Marx's ideas lead to horrors like Stalin inevitably--which is why analyses of "race," and, "gender," become important, because one of those essential flaws seems to center around white boy thinking. 3. For Marx, capitalism will eventually evolve into something better, just as feudalism evolved into something better.
But if anybody thinks that a few rules and regs and good thoughts and church atendances and uncovering of alien astronauts will fix the Ststem or Bring the System Down, they're dreamin'.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Great, Robert, now I'm ticked off! Just kidding.
I actually don't disagree with what you just wrote.
I am not convinced that Marx's communist answer is "the answer," but I agree with his premise that Capitalism will (or at least "should") evolve into something better.
I do think that adding a social conscience to Capitalism would change it as we know it, which is not a bad thing, IMHO.
I actually don't disagree with what you just wrote.
I am not convinced that Marx's communist answer is "the answer," but I agree with his premise that Capitalism will (or at least "should") evolve into something better.
I do think that adding a social conscience to Capitalism would change it as we know it, which is not a bad thing, IMHO.
rmcrobertson said:
Robert,
I never said I was not one of the lucky ones now.
I also never said it was my right or someone else's to deny them a fair wage.
And you are correct, the system does not care about the individual. Yet, I do not see another system out there that does care about the individual. Still looking.
Society in general worries about the big picture, such as survival and standard of living and not about Rich or Robert. Yet, on a large scale nation wide or planet wide, I cannot think of a system that would be individual based, as long as there was more than one individual.
:asian:
heretic888
Senior Master
Hrmmmm....
Robert's put in some very interesting thoughts, many of which I am inclined to by sympathetic with, if not flat-out agree with.
However, I would disagree with one characterization: Namely, capitalism being the actual cause of all this nastiness. That'd be like saying widespread agrarianism was the sole cause of patriarchal religion and imperialistic slavery --- it is but a half-truth, a partial truth.
A more comprehensive view would see many factors taking root here, both internal (culture) and external (society). I personally believe the "values system" and the "economic system", while distinct in some respects, ultimately co-create one another --- we simply wouldn't have "our capitalism" if it weren't for "our values". And vice-versa.
Marx was right in the sense that the socioeconomic forms of production greatly influence forms of cultural organization and worldview. He was wrong, in my opinion, in trying to reduce all cultural values and worldviews as nothing but a result of those forms of production. Reductionism is just plain silly.
My personal opinion is that "our capitalism" is the symptom of what could be called a much more subtle, and pervasive, disease. It is the not the disease itself.
Laterz.
Robert's put in some very interesting thoughts, many of which I am inclined to by sympathetic with, if not flat-out agree with.
However, I would disagree with one characterization: Namely, capitalism being the actual cause of all this nastiness. That'd be like saying widespread agrarianism was the sole cause of patriarchal religion and imperialistic slavery --- it is but a half-truth, a partial truth.
A more comprehensive view would see many factors taking root here, both internal (culture) and external (society). I personally believe the "values system" and the "economic system", while distinct in some respects, ultimately co-create one another --- we simply wouldn't have "our capitalism" if it weren't for "our values". And vice-versa.
Marx was right in the sense that the socioeconomic forms of production greatly influence forms of cultural organization and worldview. He was wrong, in my opinion, in trying to reduce all cultural values and worldviews as nothing but a result of those forms of production. Reductionism is just plain silly.
My personal opinion is that "our capitalism" is the symptom of what could be called a much more subtle, and pervasive, disease. It is the not the disease itself.
Laterz.
In way capitolism relfects biology. The flow of money is directly interchangable with energy in ecologic equations that predict the behavior of animal populations. With this being said, can you change a system to something unnatural? I struggle with this...
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Thought this might be of interest...
Friends,
Hello from Cannes! I’m sure by now many of you have heard the good news—“Fahrenheit 9/11” has won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. It is the first time in nearly 50 years a documentary has won the Palme d’Or (the Golden Palm).
Myself and twenty-six members of our crew are here in Cannes and we are in a state of shock. None of us expected this. First came the criticsÂ’ reviews on Monday (The New York Times called it my best film ever), then the audience reaction at our premiere (a 20-minute standing ovation, a new all-time record for the festival), the International Federation of Film Critics Award on Friday, and then the best film prize last night. ItÂ’s all been an incredible week for us and I canÂ’t wait to get back home and show you all this wonderfully powerful film weÂ’ve made.
No, we still don’t have a distributor in America as I write this but after winning the world’s top film prize I’d give it about one more day (if that) before we have someone brave enough (and smart enough) to show Americans what the world can already see (Albania, this week, became the final country—other than the U.S.—to sign on with a distributor).
I am still hoping for a July release (4th of July weekend?) both in the U.S. and around the world.
I fully expect the right wing and the Republican Party to come at me and this film with everything they’ve got. They will try, as they have unsuccessfully in the past, to attack me personally because they cannot win the debate on the issues the film raises—namely, that they are a pack of liars and the American people are on to them. And, if the early screenings of “Fahrenheit 9/11” are any indication, those who see this movie will never view the Bush administration in the same way again. Even if you already can’t stomach George W. Bush & Co., I think this movie will take you to places you haven’t gone before, with laughter and with tears.
I will let you all know—as soon as we have a distributor—the date the film is opening. Until then, check out some of the articles that have been written, and check out the awards ceremony from Cannes.
Thanks everyone for your support.
Yours,
Michael Moore
[email protected]
www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. When you hear the wackos on Fox News and elsewhere refer to this prize as coming from “the French,” please know that of the nine members of the Festival jury, only ONE was French. Nearly half the jury (four) were Americans and the President of the jury was an American (Quentin Tarantino). But this fact won’t stop the O’Reillys or the Lenos or the Limbaughs from attacking the French and me because, well, that’s how their simple minds function.
- From www.michaelmoore.com
Go ahead....I'll be under my desk, hiding from the s**tstorm. :toilclaw:
Friends,
Hello from Cannes! I’m sure by now many of you have heard the good news—“Fahrenheit 9/11” has won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. It is the first time in nearly 50 years a documentary has won the Palme d’Or (the Golden Palm).
Myself and twenty-six members of our crew are here in Cannes and we are in a state of shock. None of us expected this. First came the criticsÂ’ reviews on Monday (The New York Times called it my best film ever), then the audience reaction at our premiere (a 20-minute standing ovation, a new all-time record for the festival), the International Federation of Film Critics Award on Friday, and then the best film prize last night. ItÂ’s all been an incredible week for us and I canÂ’t wait to get back home and show you all this wonderfully powerful film weÂ’ve made.
No, we still don’t have a distributor in America as I write this but after winning the world’s top film prize I’d give it about one more day (if that) before we have someone brave enough (and smart enough) to show Americans what the world can already see (Albania, this week, became the final country—other than the U.S.—to sign on with a distributor).
I am still hoping for a July release (4th of July weekend?) both in the U.S. and around the world.
I fully expect the right wing and the Republican Party to come at me and this film with everything they’ve got. They will try, as they have unsuccessfully in the past, to attack me personally because they cannot win the debate on the issues the film raises—namely, that they are a pack of liars and the American people are on to them. And, if the early screenings of “Fahrenheit 9/11” are any indication, those who see this movie will never view the Bush administration in the same way again. Even if you already can’t stomach George W. Bush & Co., I think this movie will take you to places you haven’t gone before, with laughter and with tears.
I will let you all know—as soon as we have a distributor—the date the film is opening. Until then, check out some of the articles that have been written, and check out the awards ceremony from Cannes.
Thanks everyone for your support.
Yours,
Michael Moore
[email protected]
www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. When you hear the wackos on Fox News and elsewhere refer to this prize as coming from “the French,” please know that of the nine members of the Festival jury, only ONE was French. Nearly half the jury (four) were Americans and the President of the jury was an American (Quentin Tarantino). But this fact won’t stop the O’Reillys or the Lenos or the Limbaughs from attacking the French and me because, well, that’s how their simple minds function.
- From www.michaelmoore.com
Go ahead....I'll be under my desk, hiding from the s**tstorm. :toilclaw:
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Again, Marx is not responsible for the reductionism and monotony of capitalism. He's simply analyzing what's there.
And it's remarkable to see folks grounding their justiciation for an artificial--we made it--economic system on a fantasy of biology. Of course, it's remarkable mainly because that's precisely what social Darwinism does.
And it's remarkable to see folks grounding their justiciation for an artificial--we made it--economic system on a fantasy of biology. Of course, it's remarkable mainly because that's precisely what social Darwinism does.
heretic888
Senior Master
Even assuming his criticisms of capitalism are true, that is by no means all the 'reductionism' that he is culpable of.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses", anyone??
Marx's problem, again, was that he thought the slice of the pizza that he got was the whole damn pie. All of society is not simply variatons of socioeconomic modes of production, not even in capitalistic societies. Freud tended to be guilty of this, too, but he reduced all of human culture to infantile instinct-drives instead.
Cultural worldviews and social productions co-create one another. Neither exist in complete isolation.
Laterz.
rmcrobertson said:
How is something that humans make artificial? Aren't we part of nature? Don't we suscribe to the same rules? Can humans step in and out of the universe and violate its laws? No. All I am saying is that capitolism reflects things that happen in nature - especially the flow the energy in populations. Furthermore, it just might be an unconscious collective reflection of said natural laws.
A non mathmatical example...
Biologic Laws of Competition
1. Scarce resources lead to Competition.
2. Competition limits a species use of resources.
3. Competition without division of resources leads to extinction.
Can you see the parellels? Is biology telling us something about capitolism that we don't want to hear?
upnorthkyosa
heretic888
Senior Master
Can you see the parellels? Is biology telling us something about capitolism that we don't want to hear?
Perhaps. But, also remember the great thing about being human is, well, being human.
Unlike our less-aware brethren species, we can to a very substantial degree detach ourselves from biological drives, instincts, and impulses. There are limitations to this, of course, but its still something we do on a regular basis --- which is why every horny dude doesn't go raping every chica he comes across on the street.
Territorial tribalism and ethnocentrism are, ultimately, carry-overs from millions of years of animal evolution. Its part of who we are, and we cannot deny this. Ultimately, however, it is the purpose of humanity to encompass a deeper vision and not just go "tough ****" whenever bad things happen to "the other".
Just look up "humanity" in the dictionary (as in the sense "have some humanity"), and this becomes readily apparent.
Perhaps. But, also remember the great thing about being human is, well, being human.
Unlike our less-aware brethren species, we can to a very substantial degree detach ourselves from biological drives, instincts, and impulses. There are limitations to this, of course, but its still something we do on a regular basis --- which is why every horny dude doesn't go raping every chica he comes across on the street.
Territorial tribalism and ethnocentrism are, ultimately, carry-overs from millions of years of animal evolution. Its part of who we are, and we cannot deny this. Ultimately, however, it is the purpose of humanity to encompass a deeper vision and not just go "tough ****" whenever bad things happen to "the other".
Just look up "humanity" in the dictionary (as in the sense "have some humanity"), and this becomes readily apparent.
heretic888 said:
I'm not so sure about this. There are rules and then there are rules. The rules of nature always apply. The real world exists regardless of any post-modern convolutions. Primate society is filled with tons of ideosyncratic details. The reason that a bunch of horney dudes can resists the delectable bared flesh of beautiful females in their midsts is because we evolved a breeding strategy that is interlaced with behavioral restraints. This happened because controls on the populations of humans needed to be established in order to meet the competition conditions I posted above.
Heretic888, I'm not sure if there is any situation in the human experience that you couldn't link back to nature. This conversation could require a thread of its own...
Tulisan said:
To have taken the high road, it would have been nice to have seen the same investigation of the possible candidates for the election as well.
Once again, my idea of propaganda. Now I am not a Bush fan, I am just a non-fan for Micheal Moore.
:asian:
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Again--sorry, fundamental misunderstanding of Marx, fundamental misunderstanding of Freud.
Beyond the fact that neither is responsible for what capitalism and patriarchy have made of the world (though certainly both get used to justify capitalism and patriarchy)--it is capital that simplifies, not capital's analyst.
The basic pattern can be seen in what old Karl says about wages: they show the human being, in all their complexity, social relation, history, what-have-you, reduced to a certain measure of money per hour. That's not Marx's fantasy, as anybody who thinks about what they think about their jobs knows perfectly well. Mindless, repetitive work, often to produce--what? something of real value? or just profit for someone else? What do you think, "Take This Job and Shove It," is all about? We're talking about transforming human beings into meat machines.
Look through these threads, and consider discussions of morality and of martial arts. How often do they revolve around ideas like profit, exchange, looking out for yourself, efficiency, the simplification of history, etc?
To me, those are expressive of capitalist ideology. They represent grand simplifications--closely related to the one Marx identified as the hallmark of the modern era--in which all the messy complexities are swept away in favor of One Big Idea. You might as well be talking about machines.
What I do agree with is something said on this page: or, to quote my dev. psych teacher, Elizabeth Bates, "Yeah, but the whole point of being human is that you are NOT a slave to your biology."
Robert Ardrey, B.F. Skinner: dopes.
Beyond the fact that neither is responsible for what capitalism and patriarchy have made of the world (though certainly both get used to justify capitalism and patriarchy)--it is capital that simplifies, not capital's analyst.
The basic pattern can be seen in what old Karl says about wages: they show the human being, in all their complexity, social relation, history, what-have-you, reduced to a certain measure of money per hour. That's not Marx's fantasy, as anybody who thinks about what they think about their jobs knows perfectly well. Mindless, repetitive work, often to produce--what? something of real value? or just profit for someone else? What do you think, "Take This Job and Shove It," is all about? We're talking about transforming human beings into meat machines.
Look through these threads, and consider discussions of morality and of martial arts. How often do they revolve around ideas like profit, exchange, looking out for yourself, efficiency, the simplification of history, etc?
To me, those are expressive of capitalist ideology. They represent grand simplifications--closely related to the one Marx identified as the hallmark of the modern era--in which all the messy complexities are swept away in favor of One Big Idea. You might as well be talking about machines.
What I do agree with is something said on this page: or, to quote my dev. psych teacher, Elizabeth Bates, "Yeah, but the whole point of being human is that you are NOT a slave to your biology."
Robert Ardrey, B.F. Skinner: dopes.
rmcrobertson said:
Robert, how does one transcend their biology? What does this look like? This is a pseudo-spiritual concept that has little meaning unless you can describe it. Otherwise you ARE a slave to your biology...why does this concept fill people with dread? Is it because it justifies the negative aspects of capitolism as part of a natural system or is it something else?
