One would welcome a rise to higher nature Vam, but it is possible to believe systems can help with this.
On 31 Jan, 04:08, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Neil, you have the right to maintain excessive expectations from the > social - economic - political system. But that is the problem ! > > Sure, we must employ everything to put up the best defined philosophy > ( intention ) and deliverables, the right rules and the best of > technology. But at the end of the day, it is the humans that determine > how well the system works. > > With humans operating from their higher nature, with the ' bigger > picture ' in their minds, any system would yield the heaven on this > earth, The same system(s) would yield hell with us operating at our > lower nature, when greed and apathy prevails. > > All socio - political - economic institutions, including the > government and private sector enterprises, can help people rise up and > operate from their higher nature. For that to happen, however, the > humans manning these institutions and enterprises must themselves rise > onto their higher nature. > > Poverty, terror, callousnes, greed, ostentatiousness, apathy and > vulgar inequities only worsen and perpetuate matters in this context. > > On Jan 30, 8:03 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like to think I would have had a few pints with Marx Craig - no > > doubt I would have paid and perhaps stopped him in the odd act of > > vandalism when he'd had his fill. Beyond this, marxism (the capital - > > somewhat ironically is now dropped) still has uses in teaching > > research methods, but is way short on answers in practice. I rarely > > direct students towards his works - Habermas is the modern alternative > > along with Gramsci and postmodern witter. I don't think capitalism is > > the only game in town, but this is often said and assumed in public > > commentary. Much business literature beyond undergrad textbooks > > (which are very bad) actually agrees with Marx - not surprisingly as > > Richardo got to a lot of the places before him from the opposite > > social-political stance. One of these areas is competitive advantage > > where even Michael Porter's classics can take a marxist reading > > without too much stress, though I'm inclined to ask for a reading > > coloured by Darwin - deep questions about how we establish strong > > positions without smashing the very competition we will need to retain > > competition seem key. Marxism never really took root anywhere, but > > casting the Sino-Soviet experiments as state capitalism and trapped in > > the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', whilst part of the story, is > > facile in the end. > > Academic concerns tend to have been about anything that is totalising > > - from 'total war' to the 'total organisation' and 'totalising > > ideologies' - the latter is what the postmodernists have tended to > > accuse Habermas of. He wants to strip everything of ideology, yet > > this seems rather too passionate and potentially ideological itself. > > The logical positivists' last breath was to announce that their aim of > > extirpating metaphysics was itself metaphysical. > > I have been a socialist politically, but no longer believe much can be > > practically addressed at these ideological levels. The Labour party > > in the UK is now a dreadful mess. I have long preferred Scandinavian > > attitudes, but again see no real model to operate. I'm certainly no > > marxist, though can write in that style. My view is that we need new > > forms of leadership and leadership control - set against a backdrop of > > it being very hard to herd cats and avoid the worst of anarchism and > > free-riding, along with simplified systems of contribution to what > > needs doing. We have, at some point, to get to grips with peace - but > > not in a way that exposes us to the "Hun" or any group of idiots with > > guns etc. My guess is that even in the West we lack representation > > and distrust government for good reasons. I do believe there is a > > capitalist pathology based on paranoid-schizoid positioning > > strengthened by lack of community and fellowship. Making the poor > > relatively poorer as technology should allow freedom from want seems > > particularly invidious. Public choice theories have more to offer us > > than Marx, but we also need to confront lying in public office and our > > fears about the truth and inclinations to abandon truth-seeking in > > favour of regimes of truth. There is a lot of academic work in these > > areas, and science is beginning to let us know just how badly we cope > > with bias. Managerialism is a key evil that one can identify across > > cultures, politics and legal systems, along with propaganda and > > sophism in place of dialogue. We lack grace, and to be honest, I have > > not met many graceful marxists. This said, I was a slugger and > > nurdler as a batsman, lacking graceful strokes. The rules were about > > putting runs on the board and I was prepared to be ugly to watch. > > We need public works programmes again and to do something about so > > much work being unfulfilling and environmentally disastrous. > > Capitalism, whatever it is, seems to give me glimpses of trinkets > > being offered for women and sex by European conquerors - the academic > > line is about commodity fetishism (Lukacs) or the flaneur. Freedom is > > equally difficult to pin down once one asks "whose freedom" and > > recognises much we freely do impinges on the lives of others, or even > > takes them away. > > > On 30 Jan, 05:03, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 29, 8:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 1987's use of Churchillian glibness is more or less right. Yet > > > > capitalism needs critique and somehow we need to have genuine > > > > competitiveness that keeps competitions alive and well, rather than > > > > leaving only the winner with all. I played in a game against > > > > Doncaster Rovers towards the end of their spectacular run of 157 > > > > defeats and for a cricket team who were the rubbing rags of the > > > > competition for many years until we won it. I agree with Francis (and > > > > I think Gabby if I have the enigma at all) that ethics is key. My own > > > > view is that capitalism lies too often and is based on this lying. > > > > When something is the only game in town one usually finds legs have > > > > been broken to establish this - at some level worse than having to > > > > break eggs to scramble them. In short I sense that much we should do > > > > for ourselves gets taken away from us in order for capitalist > > > > mechanisms to make profit and the expense of individual well-being and > > > > communicative action. Peter is robbed to make an obscenely wealthy > > > > Paul. > > > > Neil, > > > I agree with your principle of healthy criticism, but I disagree with > > > your assumption that Capitalism is the only game in town. Even in > > > America Capitalism has been relegated the south 40 after such programs > > > as the new deal and a federal reserve. I'm as sensitive as you are to > > > the fact that a philosopher must fight against the tides of their > > > time, but I disagree with you that the tides of our time favor free > > > market capitalism. On the contrary, the tides our time very much > > > favor a more socialist approach to economics. > > > > > We need some kind of "fresh start" - but this clearly cannot be some > > > > repeat of docile body creating experiments that have already failed > > > > (hence we need a proper understanding of Sino-Soviet experimentation - > > > > not glib commie bashing). Too many profess beliefs in markets without > > > > knowing how markets work and who really benefits from them. We need > > > > to be able to make real choices, yet are often offered highly > > > > expensive rot as the products we need advertising to make us want and > > > > so on. I have the choice not to fancy women covered in smelly and > > > > oily products they have come to relish and believe make them > > > > attractive and, of course, the choice not to live in such a manner > > > > that I regard women as to be chosen by the likes of me! I want a > > > > world of less forced choice, not to have to play the games on offer > > > > and not to live in a world of keeping up with the Jones' and ahead in > > > > the arm's race. I tend to a belief that our knowledges and > > > > technologies can now provide plenty and that "capitalism" is an > > > > archaic "undead" parasitic on a system we could now structure better. > > > > None of this entails Marxism or anything else other than in > > > > understanding such mistakes and being prepared not to be simple > > > > believers of propaganda. > > > > I believe that you are now speaking pure Marxism. In fact one of the > > > arguments of many of the Marxists today is that the failure of > > > communism is that it was premature. Marx never intended to start the > > > revolution, he only prophesied of what was to come. Unfortunately his > > > prophecies became self fulfilling, and many jumped the gun. So today > > > the Marxists say, now that Capitalism has run its course, now we are > > > truly ready for an ushering in of Marxism and Socialism. Capitalism > > > has provided us with the technology and knowledge necessary to make > > > socialism work. So I think what you are saying really is Marxism. > > > > > On 29 Jan, 22:47, student1987 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I believe that Winston Churchill put it best when he said that > > > > > Capitalism is the worst form of government... except for all the rest. > > > > > There are many errors with capitalism, but it is the best of the > > > > > worst. > > > > > > On Jan 19, 11:16 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've always had trouble with "capitalism" - the word hardly appears > > > > > > in > > > > > > Marx and I've never seen any satisfactory definitions of it as a > > > > > > phenomena. I have long thought we have an entirely stupid, sick way > > > > > > of doing business with each other, and that one could really only > > > > > > guess this was > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
