Oh yes, we can spend countless hours telling each other how the other guy's idea sucks. That's usually the easy part. I read an interesting article while waiting in the doctor's office last week that challenges entrepreneurs to be more socially responsible. I linked last year to a WSJ article from Whole Food's Mackey that had some commies(and a few union members) getting their knickers all in a twist. Here it is again for those of you that like a blast from the past.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html Here's the article I read while sitting in my drawers waiting for the cute nurse to show up and check me for a hernia. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/141/the-miracle-worker.html Yeah, I know. Too much info. -Don On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:22 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 'The Trouble With Capitalism' was written in 1998 by Harry Shutt (Zed > Books). In a typical capitalist turn it's out again now with a new > preface and a couple of new cases. The book exposes the monolithic > commitment of the political mainstream to the state's propping up of > profit-maximising interests which actually lead us more or less to a > state of no real politics. Much argument in ME just never gets to > grip with any of this, almost as if the concept is unknown. Profit > would be fine if we could actually redistribute it into stuff that > formed the real capital of life - decent safe housing, research and > development and whatever. Instead, it probably just reinforces > centralised power and imperialist stealing. > > Levels of economic knowledge are dismal in the broad population. They > vary from subsistence farmers who hide their crops and grow no more > because it would only be stolen, to nationalisations done to try to > stop corporate theft. It all gets complicated by whoever has control > acting like King Mouse in keeping all others impoverished to maintain > his own position (Chavez perhaps, Mugabe without doubt). All of it > ends up with ideologies being used to justify those in power, or even > the comfortable lives of some 'niche radicals'. Shutt calls for a > radical change to the allocation of global resources if we are to have > a humane future. Fine, but pissing in the wind. I can find versions > of his book published in 1880. > > The arguments are not really about some kind of cosy and decent global > communism. For a start, communism was really only ever a free table > provided by slaves, for a few men who would give up competition with > each other through shared affluence and wives to allow the examined > life. They should be about the control of power and we do see this in > a partial sense in the obviously unmeant stuff about restricting > bwanker-bonus culture and our miserable western right to vote out one > set of idiots to replace the personal with more of the same. Behind > them is a power structure we are not allowed to shift at all and some > kind of legal system that rarely does much other than for the powerful > and is broadly unaccessible to the poor other than in limited but > still expensive ways for the scrote. It would be a whole new > experience for me to be able to vote for what I want to see happen, > rather than the lesser of evils on offer. Traditionally, this was a > Labour vote, but Nulabour is now just lying crud. The Tories seem > pretty stupid, and I've found myself tempted to vote for them much as > I voted Labour to get rid of them 12 years ago, which I now see as a > vote for CIA-Blair. The Liberals make more sense than either now, but > I really want much more substantial change and none is on offer. > > I want to be able to vote to stop our engagement in any more war. I > want a new form of regional politics with focus on Westminster reduced > by electronic voting and electronic debate we can all contribute to. > I want to stop professional privilege and obscene wages and fees. I > want to change the employment relationship so that jobs are guaranteed > (with some safeguards about scrote behaviour) so that employers really > have an interest in making jobs worthwhile .. and no doubt more. I > don't want this as some kind of utopia - I want it based on what we > know of human nature, not some dreaming dross about harmony. And > more. Given I don't even hear any of this under discussion, whatever > this democracy is, it ain't about what I want. This would be OK as > I'm not very selfish, if at least there was dialogue. There ain't. > > Dialogue is broadly stopped by people who have already made up their > minds on very little information. Action is stopped because we can't > try genuinely new ways because the current system is assumed to work > and anything else won't. We could do better and we could be trying > smaller changes in our public sectors and new industries. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
