In point 11 *It *seems the corporations and the people who lead them are already social paths Allan
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:11 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > What strikes me on public dialogue is that we get a lot of opposing > views put forward that are all based in ideology that can be stripped > so bare as to be embarrassing. This holds true for political-economic > stuff and many factual programmes on history -we still get 'Kings and > Queens' and battles with little focus on how what democracy we have > came about - amazingly,given much focus on the rich, we get little > idea of how wealth is acquired and distributed. Moral discussion > rarely gets in deep and there is massive bias towards received wisdom > and language. Journalism is stuck in value from Victorian America on > 'objectivity' - frankly worlds away from what can be justified in > critical thought. In all their 'balance' they have failed to report on > debt and wage decimation for 20 years. war reporting has been a > complete sell-out since The Falklands Fiasco. In reporting the > closure of fifty UK pubs a week, no mention was made of the fact that > there was no longer any money in the hands of those who used to use > them - in 1980 the bottom 50% had 14% of the country's liquid assets - > now it's less than 1% - and clearly why businesses reliant on it have > shut. > > Given that the cost of manufacturing in most products we buy is 10-15% > it's hard to see the business case for much 'offshoring' and there has > never been a case of us to decimate manufacturing other than for the > ideological right wanting to kill off unions and gerrymander > electorates. > > The positives we need to get to include (tomorrow): > 1.bringing back manufacturing > 2.limited debt jubilee > 3. return to primitive banking > 4. new greener products - we should aim to cut all domestic energy > needs by 70% > 5. bring in international/national service for all across US and > Europe to abolish youth unemployment and long-term unemployment > 6. raise wages > 7. cap high earnings and bring in wealth taxes that ensure capital is > invested > 8.hang the next bankster who threatens the treason of selling out to > some tax haven > 9. insist on transparent accounting on a global basis (I teach the > stuff and can no longer make sense of balance sheets) > 10. no more derivatives > 11. start looking for massive efficiency savings in new ways that > don't turn corporations into sociopaths. > 12. establish world-wide quality of working life standards and give > the kind of support to all that leads to population control (which > includes stopping the fear your kids are so likely to die you need to > have loads). > 13. stop money controlling politics - partly by ensuring it isn't to > spare for this kind of influence. > 14. encourage genuine self-reliance through more work-based learning. > 15. make politicians meet in public (Internet broadcast) not in secret > - and get on with a genuine peace that will entail getting rid of > rougue states and medievalist clowns > > Whatever the list we need to decide it and not allow the brush off > that we can't afford it. We can. What we can't afford is for it to > turn into some centralised communism or be taken over by current > centralised money. > > On Nov 7, 1:26 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I share Pat's 'tears'. In science one can pull off the positive > > eliminations and work with what's left. In the social this is hardly > > possible without moving into some solipsist fantasy as in Descartes or > > Ayn Rand's "objectivism". The farce in logical positivism is that of > > the return of desire. In attempting to extirpate system building > > (metaphysics) one is really building another. 7 books may have been > > written by Plato on how to stave off elite corruption - but of course > > he was crating an elite that would be corrupted as the Democracy was > > corrupted around him,nearly always at war. > > Inmy conception we are always working with the Undead memes of the > > past and a way forward is to bring them to light.I at least partly > > think my years in study (mostly teaching and research) have led to me > > some of the right places but one always faces the reality James > > explains a bit above. > > My frustration with philosophy is this - it relies on abilities few > > have and over time has become a pastime for these few. Almost > > everything in academe turns to this. > > In one of those weird turns, had the new inheritance laws for royal > > succession just brought in been around 200 years ago, the world wars > > may not have happened because the king of England would have been > > Germany's Kaiser. I suspect imperialism would have had its way > > anyway, but some odd turn may lead us away from the current abyss. > > OccupyX is at least getting at old left-right divides. > > > > On Nov 5, 8:59 pm, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 27, 6:43 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The communist angle always makes me smirk Pat. The original written > > > >> form was elite (Plato) and aimed at cutting the temptations of > > > >> corruption,and the American anti-commie stuff always failed to > reflect > > > >> on itself as dire ideology. These days we have 'loop theories' that > > > >> relish both capitalism and communism in some kind of balance - but > in > > > >> the end I just think we are at a past sell by date on both. I > worked > > > >> for Moldovan 'wages' (mostly food and board) when I lectured there - > > > >> three weeks worth more or less paid my train fare from the airport. > I > > > >> loved my days in the fields, mostly fixing machinery with parts > bought > > > >> with my university salary. I'd be closer to Allan on the state of > > > >> play than Rigsy. We have made casual labouring much more difficult > > > >> for our own people to do. We could do something around such work, > but > > > >> the problem is it's so much cheaper to organise around migrant > labour. > > > > > > Cheaper, yes; exploitation, equally yes. Doesn't the 'West' just > love > > > > to exploit those who it deems of less worth and then eke every last > > > > scrap of worth out of them? Of course, all in the name of 'better'. > > > > Sometimes, it makes me feel phyisically ill to think I, in some > third- > > > > party manner, benefit from such ill use of human resources. But one > > > > man can't stop it; it takes a mindset and paradigm shift to occur in > > > > the minds of, at least, 1% of the human population--and that's, now, > > > > roughly 70 million!! > > > > > Waste is quite a dilemma, on one hand you can propel industry capital > > > but on the other is negligent arrogance in taking for granted what > > > resources are consumed. Human beings seem to be regenerative, in we > > > strive to prosper, but also rationally degenerate in that we are > > > geared toward doing so in an authentic environment where leaders arise > > > by merit, what is deemed worthy of admiration and emulation. The > > > degenerate part comes into play where we are willing to suppress all > > > our instincts to persist in degenerate environments created leaders we > > > should use for one thing but fail to give the cold shoulder in other > > > matters. I would equate much of today's figureheads as ombudsmen > > > running the purchasing dept with no concept of TCO- run into Best Buy > > > and grab the flashiest piece of hardware with no reference to field > > > experts, reliability reviews, and barely a clue what the office needs > > > from a given product. It is obvious that popularity is not a marker of > > > a productive and healthy selection process. We need to devise > > > mechanisms for progress and eliminate the weak links, but this is no > > > easy task. What is it about the 1% that will get this off the ground I > > > wonder, because I've had similar strategic ideas but it always quickly > > > devolves in my mind into thousands of dilemmas. Unless of course they > > > know, understand and believe- but what- that is the question, no? > > > > > >> On Oct 27, 3:50 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > On Oct 24, 7:37 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. > > > > > >> > My sister was/is a fan of Logical Positivism. It certainly tried; > > > >> > but, as you say, it got caught up in terminology so much so that > it > > > >> > found that it didn't have the language to discuss its own topics. > > > >> > Thus, eventually becoming positively, logically negated. Isn't it > > > >> > ironic...don't you think? > > > > > >> > > 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. > > > > > >> > The answer there is, as it has always been: offering a REAL > education > > > >> > to the next generation. > > > > > >> > > 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 problem there is that most people don't see their own biases > and, > > > >> > therefore, pass on those ideologies anyway--sometimes without ever > > > >> > seeing that truth. > > > > > >> > > 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. > > > > > >> > The problem there is that there is a veritable army of economists > and > > > >> > historians trying to prevent you/us from discovering the truth OF > our > > > >> > situation out of THEIR fear that, once we discover the truth, we > will > > > >> > want, demand and deserve better leadership. The result is > worldwide > > > >> > revolution, which, as we can all see, could get very bloody > indeed. > > > >> > But, do we hide behind ignorance or maintain ignorance in order to > > > >> > avoid revolution out of the fear of bloodshed? Revolution and > change > > > >> > require courage. Is humanity Brave enough FOR a New World? > > > > > >> > > 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. > > > > > >> > I've even thought of changing to a 5-day week in which we work 3 > days > > > >> > and are off 2 days. 365 is far more divisible by 5 than it is 7 > and > > > >> > it is only a religious concept that binds us to a 7-day week. > > > > > >> > > 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. > > > > > >> > Yup. Well spotted!! And not so easily avoided. Especially when > there > > > >> > is a 'sea of troubles' to oppose before we could end them. > > > > > >> > > 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. > > > > > >> > AND making that not sound too much like the communism that it is. > > > >> > LOL!! I only say that because of the massive fear of communism by > > > >> > America due to its ignorance OF it. People... > > > > read more ยป -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
