Arthur, You are probably too right about this.
From where outside will succor come? Harry ----------------------------------------------------------- Arthur wrote: >Ray said, > >But whatever happens, it would be wonderful if our economists and futurists >on this list would come up with some ideas that could interest the rest of >us beyond the tattered 19th century Industrial models. Maybe we could get >a Science Fiction writer but with the exception of the "Pollinators of Eden" >and a couple of Roger Zelazny's novels, everything else including my beloved >Frank Herbert and Harlan Ellison are inferior to Orwell and Huxley. >Where is this "Future of Work" folks? Does it have a future? or are we >at the end of our imagination here? Where are your Bergs and your >Schoenbergs to scare the pants off of the banal and mediocre? How about a >Boulez or a Stockhausen? Instead even the "slight" Britten is frightening >to most. With such taste how can we possibly imagine anything but the >ordinary in the work life of the future? I haven't seen a decent Nobel >winner in 50 years. Mediocrity has captured the minds of the West and it >won't let go. Today, we don't even ask ourselves why Paris, a 19th >century city with the first decent toilet, is still the most beautiful city >in the world and the most idealistic. Otherwise why would all of our rich >folks insist on living there half the year? The Czars loved Paris as >well. > >Arthur replies, > >Many economists have come up with ideas. You should realize that >economists in government and business are the handmaidens of the >establishment. Academics are more and more in the same situation (the world >of the consultant!!) Every once in a while someone comes up with an idea, >and to the extent that it threatens existing distributions of income and >power it is either not listened to, taken seriously or denounced. > >Change will have to come from outside. Some sort of political change which >enables the consideration of new ways of looking the economy. Economists >will then rush forward to justify, with models and mathematics the new >agenda. Sad to say and sorry to say this, but seems to be the case. > > > >Hi Brad, > > >I said: > > [snip] > > > The Soviet Union > > > did many things better than us and they had a terrible agricultural >dilemma > > > in their growing cycle and weather. China does not share that > > > disadvantage. > > [snip] > > > It is also crucial that we not believe that Capitalism is the sole >reason > > > that we won the Cold War and the Soviet System collapsed. That we > > > seriously examine the differences in their work structure and >incorporate > > > their successes if we are going to survive the collapse of the >Industrial > > > Era's old age and out of date answers to completely new situations that > > > Capitalists never faced before. > > [snip] > > > I would also say that Brad's observation about his friend in the post " >The > > > [mis]adventures of private property under capitalism (case study)" is >just > > > another example of such systemic confusion in Capitalism. > > [snip] > > >You said: > > > Ray: Are you citing my [IMO alas not original or unique...] story as: > > (1) What I describe in the story being an example of the systemic > > confusion in Capitalism, or (2) My interpretation of what I > > describe in the story being an example of the systemic confusion > > (i.e., are you asserting that I am systemically confused?), or (3) > > both #1 and #2, or (4) other? > >I said: > >Number 1. no you are not systemically confused unless there is something >you're not sharing with us. > >(snip) > > > > I agree that it is a very good article. > > > September 29, 2002 > > > Contradictions of a Superpower > > > By ROBERT WRIGHT > > [snip] > > > But the report's [ i.e., Bush's security manifesto's(?)] > > > biggest failing may lie in ignoring radicalism's > > > intersection with another kind of technology. It is information >technology - > > > satellite TV, Web sites, e-mail, cell phones - that with growing >efficiency > > > will convert amorphous hatred of the United States into the organized > > > radicalism that can employ weapons of mass destruction. > > > Thus the global diffusion of technology means American policies that > > > generate hatred "on the street" abroad will be more and more likely to >lead > > > to terrorism. > > [snip] > > >You said: > > Again, I think the article is very good, but I think it > > might be relevant to consider here that Mr. Atta and his > > 19 or so comrades gravely disrupted the United States, inflicting > > at least $40 billion damage for a $500,000 investment WITHOUT > > USING ANY "WMD" AT ALL! Similarly, the U.S.S. Cole was knocked > > out of service for 18 months with repair costs in the > > several $100 million range by a dinghy loaded with > > non-WMD explosives. And, in Mr. Atta's case, he used our own > > resources to hurt us (we not only have lots of > > commercial jetliners, but we also have lots of WMD's here in the United > > States!). > >I say: > >This is what guerilla operations alway do. It cost one million dollars per >Indian for the US to win the Indian wars in the 1880s which took three years >against an enemy they could find but wouldn't stand still and fight since we >were defending our way of life, families and our very existance. One of >the things that is always made a big deal of in Capitalist propoganda is the >large mansions i.e. palaces, of the enemies. It was an eye opening trip >for Reagan to go to Russia and visit the Hermitage which was put up not by >the Communists but the Czars. Nancy even said: It is no wonder you had a >revolution considering the grotesque wealth compared to the common people. >One could also ask if the Czars had continued what kind of space program, >housing, educational or health programs they would have had for the children >of those peasants. You could ask the same about the mini-Democratic >government that preceded the Bolshiviks. Many things are said and >projected but it should be noted that the poverty rate in this country >currently is greater than in the Soviet Union when we were in the Cold War. >(NYTimes last week.) > >As for those castles, mansions or palaces, as in the local Moslem countries, >I'm sure that the locals would rather have better housing and a lower infant >mortality rate but I am also sure that their identity is wrapped up in such >big projects as mentioned just as ours was wrapped up in the Trade Towers. >It will take as much money relatively for them to replace their identity in >their leaders as it does us in ours. I realize this is not a popular or >even Democratic view but I do believe it is accurate psychologically. We >have people who are non-logical to say the least in their allegiances and >alliances where the only answer lies in their psychological indentification >of self and their sense of what it takes to be secure. In fact we are >suffering a non-logical breakdown in the marketplace at present where it >would make more sense to stop, think and plan as well as put the crooks in >jail but we insist upon civil rights for the wealthy crooks while >incarcerating the lower class guerellas forever in Cuba on evidence that is >evidentily so poor that they won't even let us see it. One of the crooks >is the Secretary of the Army where the appearance of evil is not enough to >incarcerate him in spite of the fact that he is in charge of the largest >fighting force in the history of the world. Another is the Vice President >of the United States who evidently makes Spiro Agnew look like a provencial >Angel. And then there is the President who stole the election with the >help of his brother, in spite of some of the protestations on the list. >But how can you live in California and pay that exorbitant electric bill >last year and not know that the Texans had screwed you? > > >You said: > > Our enemies may not need weapons of > > mass destruction to destroy us: Please do not forget that > > a big reason the Bush administration did not pay much > > attention to AlQaeda in 2001 was that the Bush administration > > was busy protecting us from rogue nation ICBMs! Maybe > > our focus on weapons of mass destruction needs to be placed in > > a broader context of > > attention to the factors of human intelligence and human commitment > > to a cause. > > >I would agree with the latter but not the former. I think the Bush >administration is basically compromised and incompetent. I think it is >grounded in their experience in the sector where I make my living, the >private sector. A place filled with companies that act like and are larger >than many socialist countries but who would never support a nation acting >like or to them either here or abroad as they act themselves in favor of >their "landed class" i.e. stockholders. These are the people who prefer >pundits to scholars and then wonder why Democrats don't come out to perform >in their coliseum. > >Think of NAFTA which is skewed in favor of companies and against >Democracies. I suspect that the future will hold one of three things. >1. Either greater abuse and tyranny from those companies world wide or 2. >that Capitalism will be defeated by the megalithic giant of China with their >unique cultural structure, or 3. That there will be a fifth way emerge that >is either an amalgam of the previous four or a totally new system. > >When we talk theory it usually comes down to the market version of whether >the rejection of "fast food" means that we all shouldn't eat instead of >making the food better. These wonderful theories about the Middle East >seem inexperienced except in the tabloids. The people who know >Palestinians, live in Israel or who work with Jews and Palestinians seem >quiet on much of this and when they do speak it becomes a time for battering >their knowledge instead of asking questions and proving one's National >superiority rather than a discussion relating to how economists, futurists >and professionals could help the situation. > >I think Karen has supplied an intelligence simply by asking questions that >many of we men were unable to supply and it is a pleasure that Devorah and >Selma are speaking out. But the itch of the ideals about work and how >people grow their culture without being destroyed by the battering ram of >Western Business or the fundamentalist idiocy of the Middle Eastern Desert >Religions have not even been scratched. Note, I am talking about the >religious version of the 18th and 19th century economic philosophers who >have committed genocide and murdered whole professions with impunity that >didn't fit into their systems. I am not speaking of the progressives who >value the past, live in the present and work to imagine a future where both >can exist under the rubric of "Heritage and Cooperation." I care little >for the couch whether Freud or Procrustes. > >But whatever happens, it would be wonderful if our economists and futurists >on this list would come up with some ideas that could interest the rest of >us beyond the tattered 19th century Industrial models. Maybe we could get >a Science Fiction writer but with the exception of the "Pollinators of Eden" >and a couple of Roger Zelazny's novels, everything else including my beloved >Frank Herbert and Harlan Ellison are inferior to Orwell and Huxley. >Where is this "Future of Work" folks? Does it have a future? or are we >at the end of our imagination here? Where are your Bergs and your >Schoenbergs to scare the pants off of the banal and mediocre? How about a >Boulez or a Stockhausen? Instead even the "slight" Britten is frightening >to most. With such taste how can we possibly imagine anything but the >ordinary in the work life of the future? I haven't seen a decent Nobel >winner in 50 years. Mediocrity has captured the minds of the West and it >won't let go. Today, we don't even ask ourselves why Paris, a 19th >century city with the first decent toilet, is still the most beautiful city >in the world and the most idealistic. Otherwise why would all of our rich >folks insist on living there half the year? The Czars loved Paris as >well. > >"How do you like your blue-eyed boy now Mr. Death?" (cummings) > >Ray Evans Harrell > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002 ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002
