I don't give up on the idea we can police elite crime rigsy. The job market has changed far more than for jobs to be freed-up by women returning to the maternity ward and kitchen. I don't think its all relative either either. This kind of underlying negativityprevents change.
On Oct 24, 10:23 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Machines/technology are replacing human labor. Children might do > better being educated via computer and leave socialization to play > groups and sports. The military can effect as much damage via remote > control. But- will women return to being stay-at-home moms/homemakers > thus freeing up what jobs remain for the men? I doubt it - it has > become an ego/security matter for Western women. There will always be > cheats and thieves, Archytas, who cause as much monetary losses as the > "elites"- it's all relative, depending on the number of zeros. > > On Oct 24, 1:37 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > There was philosophy once called logical positivism. \\it's people > > were well-intentioned, like Russell and Carnap. If you have a few > > hours to spare I could explain its basics - in the end it got so > > concerned with words they were all that was left. Strangely it was > > accused of being crude in its use of brute fact. > > > The problem as I see it is that we want democracy but have not found a > > way to accept its biggest flaw - that of decisions made through the > > sway of ignorance, and further problems with the corruption of > > representatives. Attempts at a fix of this in perfection are doomed > > or the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. > > > One might try to produce communication free of ideology and this let > > Reason alone have power (Habermas) - but as far as I can see this > > never works - and Habermas only suggests his 'ideal speech situation' > > as an ideal type (following Weber). > > > The best positive I can reach is that we could change our material > > conditions to produce less discontent. To get to an understanding of > > this we need to agree on some basic facts - and the move towards these > > is critical. People as old as Orn and myself can remember when it was > > possible for most in the West to get somewhere near this because there > > were plenty of well paid jobs about. Oversimplifying a lot this is > > not now the case and we need to establish what the new conditions are. > > > Productivity is vastly enhanced from the times in which our work > > ethics arose. My guess is we could get by quite nicely on a 30hr > > working week and a 40 week year with retirement at 60 whilst > > increasing current production. I am only guessing, but the reason I > > have to guess is odd. Why don't we know? There are perhaps a dozen > > vital areas like this to which we have no accepted answers. > > > The positive moves are all about establishing facts and the first of > > these has to be an explanation of why we are so bad at this and > > whether new technology can help break the 'spell'. Here, the paradox > > is we need the technology to start working to this end with most > > people not able to understand why and an existing situation in which > > dominant education and media will try to pervert any attempts. > > > Many are discussing these issues in great detail. I'm sure a few of > > us could put a '101' together from Internet sources. Semiotics is a > > key discipline in the critique (Michael Betancourt), as is > > environmental science (as opposed to the Kymer Vert) and most > > economics that you don't get on Fox and the increasingly dumb BBC > > (Steve Keen) One can even argue the Tea Party and OccupyX have > > similar protest issues. You can get a radical smear of this on the > > Keiser Report (courtesy on Russia Today). > > > The aim is already worked out - a return to economies with a link > > between toil (labour value) and reward and money in people's hands, > > not hoarded by an elite or subject to their looting- and meaningful > > democracy.
