Orn's link raises questions about motivation to work. I'll no doubt have waxed on about the inanity of much management theory on this that I have been forced to teach. Dismal, petty stuff to be found in any dross text on organisational behaviour, other than the more critical Jackson and Carter. I am not personally motivated to work at all, though earning a living and doing my bit is another matter. People in the Soviet Block were quite happy to destroy or not erpair transport systems in order to keep food they produced and around the world subsistence farmers do just subsist as having crops stolen by government and bandits is no motivation to do any more. There's a lot I'd like to do that would involve hard work. I'm also motivated to do my share of society's scut work. No doubt a senior CEO is 'motivated' to 'earn' money so he can have a day off on his yacht as his company pukes vast quantities of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, rather than being at the scene doing what he could for people who have seen their livelihoods destroyed. I don't think capitalism helps with any of this - we need more basic understandings.
On 21 June, 00:35, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > It's always hard in a few lines Gruff. I don't believe in capitalism > in much the same way I don't believe in god/s. Like Hume, I'm > agnostic, believing only rationalist fantasy provides 'proof' in areas > like this, or an internalist account that puts one in a condition to > believe. Fair trade would not be a problem and nor is 'bumbling > along' with laws, government and countervailing institutions, though I > think the evidence here is that practice is shot through to the > extent we hardly ever get any evidence to work on. > Capitalism versus socialism always seemed a non-starter to me, given > the 'socialist experiments' vested capital in the State. Any kind of > substantial, scientific analysis would have looked for similarities > rather than rushing to a theoretical basis ahead of evidence. It is > the theoretical basis I cannot believe in and thus I'm no more a > believer in socialism as I am in capitalism. In the old Eastern Block > is was impossible even to discuss Wittgenstein openly, despite much > excellent scholarship, and fear of State intrusion was greater than we > have generally experienced. > Evidence is always spun to some extent and I think we need to keep to > something more basic than terms like capitalism - hence I agree > entirely that whatever we are trying to look at is a product of human > work, good,bad and indifferent. We take sides too quickly and rush to > knowledge actually without foundation, notably as you point out above > around the internal-external split. > One can make up all kinds of plausible stories, but one has to wonder > a lot of the time why there is any need. Despite knowing evidence is > difficult a lot of the time, my experience has generally been that the > evidence of wide experience and what would be crucial in a case is > often hidden, sometimes kept behind closed doors for insider trading > or competitive advantage. I would prefer more basic enquiry to > theoretical speculation on how we are going about living. The > undercover camera is often very revealing than editorial, and always > seems to present an account at considerable variance with official > reporting. I would like us to be able to work with more basic data > such as this. > > On 20 June, 04:37, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A comment: Revisiting George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four in 2010 > > > see:http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/1984-j12.shtml > > > On Jun 19, 3:54 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Archytas, you are quite right that the history of human trade and > > > power are rife with examples of abuses, excesses and every dastardly > > > deed known to and by our species. In fact the history of humanity in > > > all it's splendor is rife with those sames abuses and excesses. It is > > > also true that when it comes to abuses, excesses and downright > > > nastiness, there is no species in existence (that we know of) which > > > outdoes the human species. > > > > It is an age old truth and therefore trite that when it comes to nasty > > > behavior, there is nothing new under the sun. Or any other star for > > > that matter. However, I'd be willing to bet a solar unit or two that > > > if there are other intelligent and sentient species in existence, that > > > they've been through the same horrific growth process to becoming > > > civilized. > > > > I become lost by your statement that you don't believe in capitalism. > > > I'm not sure what you mean by that -- what it is that you don't > > > believe in. It sounds to me much like saying you don't believe in > > > trade or commerce. It's not a matter of belief. It just is. We've > > > brought capitalism into existence by virtue of our penchant for trade, > > > business and living better than the Joneses. We created profit in the > > > same manner and for the same reasons. When we began to lay off those > > > profits by investing in other money making schemes, we created > > > capitalism. > > > > The way transactions work is really very simple. They work according > > > to the principles and parameters of supply and demand. An area I > > > think that needs working on is rather than going after the highest > > > profit or making the most money, we concentrate on a fair profit and > > > making a fair amount of money. Win-win transactions that benefit all > > > parties are the stuff of moral economics. > > > > Looking at what unions have created in western society, I'm not so > > > sure that the preying isn't on both sides of the fence. There is > > > something somewhat out of kilter when an assembly line worker in > > > Detroit makes more in wages and benefits than a nurse or skilled > > > technician. > > > > On Jun 19, 2:44 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Even Marx and Lenin thought there was some good in capitalism, at > > > > least in markets. The problem was always to do with competition > > > > producing monopoly once one lot got really efficient. Capitalism at > > > > least freed us up from feudalism. My own suspicion is that even > > > > these arguments failed to take into account what the historic > > > > conditions and mechanisms of trade and power had really been about. I > > > > don't believe in capitalism because I'm sure it's as mythical and > > > > religious stories and both communism and democracy have roots in > > > > societies in which the rich came up with the ideas on the backs of > > > > work done by slaves. We are overdue for our own ideas and something > > > > that allows for very different people in it. I think we had some > > > > brief eddies some years back when jobs were not scarce of what it > > > > might feel like not to be beholden to the boss class. I would guess > > > > we have missed the chance for a sane (ish) society since WW2 by > > > > encouraging huge population expansion and failing to be sensible about > > > > religion. Capitalism is probably just b-play to this wider lunacy. > > > > What we need in systems of transaction is to understand how they self- > > > > regulate so that we can trust to do work and feel it won't be stolen > > > > in one way or another. Capitalism always preys on some labour that > > > > cannot protect itself. This shouldn't blind us to its good bits.
