c
These are just some random C topics, scroll down the left side menu to see more.
Capitalism harms people
Concerning the killings in Tunisia in 2015, from todays Guardian newspaper:
“Lawyers representing families of 20 of the deceased Britons are to accuse (the travel company) Tui of “practically hiding and keeping out of the limelight” FCO warnings about terrorism in Tunisia…
The travel firm, which in the year to September made an underlying profit of €1bn (£866m), is also said to have sold customers travel insurance that excluded cancellation cover caused by terrorism risks…
Before the Sousse attack, Tui is said in submissions by the families to have discouraged cancellation by penalising customers up to the full cost of their booked holidays if they chose to cancel as a result of learning of terrorist activities or risks.”
A clear example of profits mattering more than people.
One of the many reasons why capitalism is not a good enough system is that encourages companies to cut corners even if that reduces safety, to hide dangers in its products and services, even if people get hurt. Because the main aim is NOT to make a good product or offer a good service, its not to help make a good society. They only pretend that is the aim…
The main aim is to make money profit.Therefore, at the very core of capitalism is the tendency and temptation to lie and cheat for profit… despite that putting people in harms way.
Capitalism has proven to be the best system, or the least bad anyway:
Food shortages, less innovation etc. Look at Mao and his collectivised farming which ended up killing tens of millions of Chinese in huge famines. The profit motive sounds repellent to some people but regulate free markets (with government intervention where necessary) have been, time and again shown to be the least worst method of organising an society.
1. capitalism and free market have been shown to be, or proven by history to be the least bad system.
HOW? When did they run this fair and balanced comparison of the various options we have? I must have missed that report.
2. Mao and Stalin is not what almost any communist or anarchist would say were good models. In fact 90% of communists would condemn that as horrible distortions of communism, and 99% of anarchists would condemn those two twats. So, what are you proving by constantly dragging them up? Would you also say that ALL religion is always and everywhere impossible and bad with no redeeming aspects and no possibility of ever being made positive… all because of the cruelty of inquisition or the because of the killing that went on in crusades? Or, to use rather small scale analogy, would you say that all computers are impossibly unreliable because your PC broken down last Tuesday?
3. Even IF capitalism and free market could somehow be agreed on to be the least bad system so far… its still a BAD system, and getting worse. So that does not mean we should conclude that we now give up on trying to create a better system. If we are capable of organising society in a better way - and I think we are - why settle for this present system which is quite clearly full of problems?
Confusion about capitalism
We are in a grand irony in most societies. An irony because most people dont really know what capitalism or communism or anarchism are and they normally think that each of those things is the opposite of what it is in practice. To use an analogy its like someone saying ‘The Moon shines brighter than the sun’, and insisting that it does, despite rational and reasonable argument. They may stand in their garden at 11pm and say ‘Well can you SEE me? Yes you can! Why? Because of the moonlight! My point proven.’… if you reply to them: ‘Yes, i can see you, just. But if we came back to this spot at 11am - when the sun is out - I could see you a lot better.’… to which they may reply: ‘Oh, right! - in your hippie utopian dream world. But that isn’t practical!’… ‘No, it’s not a dream world - that IS practical. If only you would try it.’…
The issue is not dealt with in rational, reasonable ways, but with pre-set ideological views that most people are unaware of even having.
Communism is:
"communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being..." - agreed! What more folk need to know was that stalin and mao were not communism, the lies you have been told is not communism... what communism, and anarchism are is: cool, confident, freedom, a better life, a better environment... achievable, realistic.... and for those who laugh at that: you're wrong... plain wrong baby.
Conforming into fascism
In his excellent portrayal of Nazification of German life, the historian Peter Fritzsche recounts a story of Karl Dürkefälden, a German living in the town of Peine during Hitler’s ascent to power. An opponent of Nazis, Karl expressed in his diary a profound sense of shock at how quickly his whole family—mother, father, and his sister—underwent a conversion to Nazism during the early 1933. In one particularly poignant scene, Karl is standing at the window of his house alongside his wife looking at the Nazi May Day celebrations, in which the entire, now Nazified, community participates, including his father. He struggles to remain on the sidelines not because he is a convinced Nazi, but because his entire community is caught up in what he called Umstellung, “a rapid…adjustment or conversion to Nazism,” in the words of Fritzsche.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/trumps_not_hitler_hes_mussolini_how_gop_anti_intellectualism_created_a_modern_fascist_movement_in_america/
It’s like the snow ball growing larger and stronger and faster - after a time there is no stopping it, no avoiding it, you get caught up, have to join with it. So there seems to me to be two ways to avoid that: stop the snowball from starting to roll down hill on its exponential course, or make sure there is no snow on the mountain for it to add to itself on the way down. We can stop it by addressing the issues that form the problem snowball, or smashing it physically while it’s still small at the top of the hill. Or if we can’t address the issues that cause the forming and falling of the snowball, or can’t bring ourselves to smash it, then we could melt away the problems that cause the rest of the mountain to descend into an icy chill. Therefore the problem issue just rolls down hill, and with no other troubled people to add to itself on the way down, it simple chips itself away into nothing in the fall.
Capitalism harms people
Concerning the killings in Tunisia in 2015, from todays Guardian newspaper:
“Lawyers representing families of 20 of the deceased Britons are to accuse (the travel company) Tui of “practically hiding and keeping out of the limelight” FCO warnings about terrorism in Tunisia…
The travel firm, which in the year to September made an underlying profit of €1bn (£866m), is also said to have sold customers travel insurance that excluded cancellation cover caused by terrorism risks…
Before the Sousse attack, Tui is said in submissions by the families to have discouraged cancellation by penalising customers up to the full cost of their booked holidays if they chose to cancel as a result of learning of terrorist activities or risks.”
A clear example of profits mattering more than people.
One of the many reasons why capitalism is not a good enough system is that encourages companies to cut corners even if that reduces safety, to hide dangers in its products and services, even if people get hurt. Because the main aim is NOT to make a good product or offer a good service, its not to help make a good society. They only pretend that is the aim…
The main aim is to make money profit.Therefore, at the very core of capitalism is the tendency and temptation to lie and cheat for profit… despite that putting people in harms way.
Capitalism has proven to be the best system, or the least bad anyway:
Food shortages, less innovation etc. Look at Mao and his collectivised farming which ended up killing tens of millions of Chinese in huge famines. The profit motive sounds repellent to some people but regulate free markets (with government intervention where necessary) have been, time and again shown to be the least worst method of organising an society.
1. capitalism and free market have been shown to be, or proven by history to be the least bad system.
HOW? When did they run this fair and balanced comparison of the various options we have? I must have missed that report.
2. Mao and Stalin is not what almost any communist or anarchist would say were good models. In fact 90% of communists would condemn that as horrible distortions of communism, and 99% of anarchists would condemn those two twats. So, what are you proving by constantly dragging them up? Would you also say that ALL religion is always and everywhere impossible and bad with no redeeming aspects and no possibility of ever being made positive… all because of the cruelty of inquisition or the because of the killing that went on in crusades? Or, to use rather small scale analogy, would you say that all computers are impossibly unreliable because your PC broken down last Tuesday?
3. Even IF capitalism and free market could somehow be agreed on to be the least bad system so far… its still a BAD system, and getting worse. So that does not mean we should conclude that we now give up on trying to create a better system. If we are capable of organising society in a better way - and I think we are - why settle for this present system which is quite clearly full of problems?
Confusion about capitalism
We are in a grand irony in most societies. An irony because most people dont really know what capitalism or communism or anarchism are and they normally think that each of those things is the opposite of what it is in practice. To use an analogy its like someone saying ‘The Moon shines brighter than the sun’, and insisting that it does, despite rational and reasonable argument. They may stand in their garden at 11pm and say ‘Well can you SEE me? Yes you can! Why? Because of the moonlight! My point proven.’… if you reply to them: ‘Yes, i can see you, just. But if we came back to this spot at 11am - when the sun is out - I could see you a lot better.’… to which they may reply: ‘Oh, right! - in your hippie utopian dream world. But that isn’t practical!’… ‘No, it’s not a dream world - that IS practical. If only you would try it.’…
The issue is not dealt with in rational, reasonable ways, but with pre-set ideological views that most people are unaware of even having.
Communism is:
"communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being..." - agreed! What more folk need to know was that stalin and mao were not communism, the lies you have been told is not communism... what communism, and anarchism are is: cool, confident, freedom, a better life, a better environment... achievable, realistic.... and for those who laugh at that: you're wrong... plain wrong baby.
Conforming into fascism
In his excellent portrayal of Nazification of German life, the historian Peter Fritzsche recounts a story of Karl Dürkefälden, a German living in the town of Peine during Hitler’s ascent to power. An opponent of Nazis, Karl expressed in his diary a profound sense of shock at how quickly his whole family—mother, father, and his sister—underwent a conversion to Nazism during the early 1933. In one particularly poignant scene, Karl is standing at the window of his house alongside his wife looking at the Nazi May Day celebrations, in which the entire, now Nazified, community participates, including his father. He struggles to remain on the sidelines not because he is a convinced Nazi, but because his entire community is caught up in what he called Umstellung, “a rapid…adjustment or conversion to Nazism,” in the words of Fritzsche.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/trumps_not_hitler_hes_mussolini_how_gop_anti_intellectualism_created_a_modern_fascist_movement_in_america/
It’s like the snow ball growing larger and stronger and faster - after a time there is no stopping it, no avoiding it, you get caught up, have to join with it. So there seems to me to be two ways to avoid that: stop the snowball from starting to roll down hill on its exponential course, or make sure there is no snow on the mountain for it to add to itself on the way down. We can stop it by addressing the issues that form the problem snowball, or smashing it physically while it’s still small at the top of the hill. Or if we can’t address the issues that cause the forming and falling of the snowball, or can’t bring ourselves to smash it, then we could melt away the problems that cause the rest of the mountain to descend into an icy chill. Therefore the problem issue just rolls down hill, and with no other troubled people to add to itself on the way down, it simple chips itself away into nothing in the fall.
COBA - Compulsory Open Book Accounting
looks like a good idea, but what we need really is COSA: compulsory open society accounting! A society in which everything is open and accountable. and capitalism will never be that, its impossible because at its core is elite hidden dealings for the benefit of those few. they can never be fully open about that.
looks like a good idea, but what we need really is COSA: compulsory open society accounting! A society in which everything is open and accountable. and capitalism will never be that, its impossible because at its core is elite hidden dealings for the benefit of those few. they can never be fully open about that.
Jeremy Corbyn
1. I can see that its possible that he performed badly. But there is a huge difference between performing poorly and deliberately ‘sabotaging’. England performed badly against iceland last night, but did they do it to deliberately to lose the game? Its a very large leap to say so.
2. You think he actually, and secretly, wants the UK out of EU and therefore wishes to ‘A50’ soon, to make sure we are on that road? I am not convinced by the points that he wishes that.
3. mandate to reach working class and Scottish - he has had very little time to achieve any of those, surely? He has only been leader for 10 months. a very short period of time. It would be a miracle to see a vast turn around in support among the working class or in Scotland in that time. could any leader achieve those in 10 months? In Scotland is highly doubtful that any political leader, of any party, could win over dominance from the SNP now. To judge him as not succeding at something which no one, at present, could succeed at seems very harsh.
To increase support among working class English and Welsh should be more do-able and I agree that he is perceived, by some, as too socialist to be able to do that. But it has to be said that the main fault in that lies not with him, but with the ordinary voter supporting things which are against their interests. the classic false consciousness type thing. As you say ‘because the majority of the country has swallowed anti-socialist sentiments.’ since the late 70s, and of course, since the late 19thC in the long run. So, again, to blame Corbyn for not overcoming this in 10 months this this seems slightly unfair.
Now, to say that he is not the best person to help in the long slow process of overcoming that capitalist indoctrination so that most British people can start to develop a more accurate and fully rounded awareness of what capitalism/socialism/anarchism etc actually are…. yes, that may be true. But he has, as you say, appealed to various young people. He did spark off what looked like genuine enthusiasm to me, amongst SOME people, and quite a lot. So, is that not helping towards that long, slow process?
Next thing might be ‘ok it is helping. but that is too long, too slow, not enough people’. And some other figure could achieve more, and more quickly.Oh, yes, possibly.that would presumably involve the compromises of which you speak. what are they, actually? I would be interested to know some examples please. and again i dont ask that in a nasty way, i would really like to see what would be the compromises that some other figure could do that Corbyn cant.
‘he's stuck in the 1980s. ‘ - this seemed like a silly Tory piece of propaganda to me, from the start. Duran Duran are stuck in the 80s, but Corbyn is not. In what way, substantially, is he ‘stuck’ in a time which is not useful for today’s politics, economics, physical environment, etc? As to trade unions, since there are still 6.5 million people in them, or just under 25% of all employed people, it would be foolish of him not to have that as a key element, no? How is reaching out to 6.5 million something that is out of date? They are all alive here and now. If he were focusing on them ONLY it would be a bad idea. but having unions involved as part of an overall plan seems essential and not in any way stuck in the past.
'cultivating an atmosphere of us against them within the Labour party. The atmosphere around him is so dismissive of opposing views, everybody that doesn't agree with him is reduced to Blairite scum'
- from the start he said that he was open to considering other views and stressed that he would not want a one side approach. and he kept various people who clearly opposed him in the cabinet (until they left last week!). So what evidence is there of HIM actually dismissing opposing views?
As to others around him and Corbyn supporters attacking those on the left who dont agree with Corbyn - yes, i can see that.and that is inaccurate, and an silly over-generalization, or even nasty. But i dont see much of that coming from HIM.
could you provide some evidence of 'he appears to be run by people who don't give a fig about the fate of people and only want to bring on 'the final crisis of capitalism' - i means their statements that indicate it? Seriously...i would like to see that if you have come across it. i have not seen any of either of those so far. 1 that they don't care about ordinary people. his statement in this video, and always, seems the opposite of that. 2. have you seen any evidence that his or their MAIN aim is to bring about a crisis in capitalism in a historically deterministic way? Thank you!
Capitalism isn’t perfect, BUT…
This is probably the most common attitude around nowadays, regarding which system would be best for society. It’s often thought of as supporting capitalism, or meaning that most people think its ok. But if we think a bit more about the phrasing - its hardly a resounding affirmation is it? It’s a bit like a girl saying: ‘My boyfriend is not perfect, but he’ll do… for now!’ It doesn’t make the guy’s position look too secure!
The fact that the common view recently has this caveat in it could easily be seen as indicating that very few people actively like capitalism now. Only a small minority think it’s a strongly good system, and few would exclaim something like ‘My boyfriend’s the best!’ in regards to it. So, we are probably in a position now of lukewarm support for capitalism. And, sticking with the boyfriend metaphor, it’s quite possible that the relationship will get even worse. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years time the average view regarding capitalism might be something closer to ‘I’m getting sick of this guy!’
Here’s looking forward to the break up!
Capitalist supports lack eloquence
This is one of the reasons i am not impressed with capitalism: there are so few people who can argue for it eloquently. if it was a good system, that people had thought deeply about and really believed in it... you would find a whole lot more people who really understood it, and could make a case for it.
but at least 90% of people who 'support' it do so in a very cliched way, without knowing what it is, or what the alternatives are
1. I can see that its possible that he performed badly. But there is a huge difference between performing poorly and deliberately ‘sabotaging’. England performed badly against iceland last night, but did they do it to deliberately to lose the game? Its a very large leap to say so.
2. You think he actually, and secretly, wants the UK out of EU and therefore wishes to ‘A50’ soon, to make sure we are on that road? I am not convinced by the points that he wishes that.
3. mandate to reach working class and Scottish - he has had very little time to achieve any of those, surely? He has only been leader for 10 months. a very short period of time. It would be a miracle to see a vast turn around in support among the working class or in Scotland in that time. could any leader achieve those in 10 months? In Scotland is highly doubtful that any political leader, of any party, could win over dominance from the SNP now. To judge him as not succeding at something which no one, at present, could succeed at seems very harsh.
To increase support among working class English and Welsh should be more do-able and I agree that he is perceived, by some, as too socialist to be able to do that. But it has to be said that the main fault in that lies not with him, but with the ordinary voter supporting things which are against their interests. the classic false consciousness type thing. As you say ‘because the majority of the country has swallowed anti-socialist sentiments.’ since the late 70s, and of course, since the late 19thC in the long run. So, again, to blame Corbyn for not overcoming this in 10 months this this seems slightly unfair.
Now, to say that he is not the best person to help in the long slow process of overcoming that capitalist indoctrination so that most British people can start to develop a more accurate and fully rounded awareness of what capitalism/socialism/anarchism etc actually are…. yes, that may be true. But he has, as you say, appealed to various young people. He did spark off what looked like genuine enthusiasm to me, amongst SOME people, and quite a lot. So, is that not helping towards that long, slow process?
Next thing might be ‘ok it is helping. but that is too long, too slow, not enough people’. And some other figure could achieve more, and more quickly.Oh, yes, possibly.that would presumably involve the compromises of which you speak. what are they, actually? I would be interested to know some examples please. and again i dont ask that in a nasty way, i would really like to see what would be the compromises that some other figure could do that Corbyn cant.
‘he's stuck in the 1980s. ‘ - this seemed like a silly Tory piece of propaganda to me, from the start. Duran Duran are stuck in the 80s, but Corbyn is not. In what way, substantially, is he ‘stuck’ in a time which is not useful for today’s politics, economics, physical environment, etc? As to trade unions, since there are still 6.5 million people in them, or just under 25% of all employed people, it would be foolish of him not to have that as a key element, no? How is reaching out to 6.5 million something that is out of date? They are all alive here and now. If he were focusing on them ONLY it would be a bad idea. but having unions involved as part of an overall plan seems essential and not in any way stuck in the past.
'cultivating an atmosphere of us against them within the Labour party. The atmosphere around him is so dismissive of opposing views, everybody that doesn't agree with him is reduced to Blairite scum'
- from the start he said that he was open to considering other views and stressed that he would not want a one side approach. and he kept various people who clearly opposed him in the cabinet (until they left last week!). So what evidence is there of HIM actually dismissing opposing views?
As to others around him and Corbyn supporters attacking those on the left who dont agree with Corbyn - yes, i can see that.and that is inaccurate, and an silly over-generalization, or even nasty. But i dont see much of that coming from HIM.
could you provide some evidence of 'he appears to be run by people who don't give a fig about the fate of people and only want to bring on 'the final crisis of capitalism' - i means their statements that indicate it? Seriously...i would like to see that if you have come across it. i have not seen any of either of those so far. 1 that they don't care about ordinary people. his statement in this video, and always, seems the opposite of that. 2. have you seen any evidence that his or their MAIN aim is to bring about a crisis in capitalism in a historically deterministic way? Thank you!
Capitalism isn’t perfect, BUT…
This is probably the most common attitude around nowadays, regarding which system would be best for society. It’s often thought of as supporting capitalism, or meaning that most people think its ok. But if we think a bit more about the phrasing - its hardly a resounding affirmation is it? It’s a bit like a girl saying: ‘My boyfriend is not perfect, but he’ll do… for now!’ It doesn’t make the guy’s position look too secure!
The fact that the common view recently has this caveat in it could easily be seen as indicating that very few people actively like capitalism now. Only a small minority think it’s a strongly good system, and few would exclaim something like ‘My boyfriend’s the best!’ in regards to it. So, we are probably in a position now of lukewarm support for capitalism. And, sticking with the boyfriend metaphor, it’s quite possible that the relationship will get even worse. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years time the average view regarding capitalism might be something closer to ‘I’m getting sick of this guy!’
Here’s looking forward to the break up!
Capitalist supports lack eloquence
This is one of the reasons i am not impressed with capitalism: there are so few people who can argue for it eloquently. if it was a good system, that people had thought deeply about and really believed in it... you would find a whole lot more people who really understood it, and could make a case for it.
but at least 90% of people who 'support' it do so in a very cliched way, without knowing what it is, or what the alternatives are
Collective decision making
This is incorrect and shortsighted Michael, gomen! Firstly, collective decision making is the main way we decide things, in everyday life. My friend and I discussed if we will go to X bar on Y bar and decided together on Y bar. It's not perfect, its not a 100% thorough genuine debate... but it is a roughly mutual, though rather messy, decision making process of more or less equals. Thats every day reality....
Ok, so perhaps you meant ONLY in politics: but there too. Lots of actions get taken after considerable debate. Its unrealistic to ignore the amount of debate that does take place. Policies get dropped, altered, etc. It happens a lot more than we may think. And the general public can be involved in those decisions. For example,this month the Head of French Internet Regulator ARCEP announced that after receiving a lot of public concern they would not bow to pressure from big companies to establish a ‘fast internet’ for the rich. So, on this point decision making in which various interested parties contribute towards the decision, DOES happen, a moderately large amount. And what im saying is that it should happen a very large amount more.
‘Do you think anybody was capable of telling say Churchill or Thatcher 'no'.
- Are you joking? Of course they did! This is a provable historical fact. One easy example it took me 3 minutes to find, about Aneurin Bevan and Churchill:
“Bevan opposed the heavy censorship imposed on radio and newspapers and wartime… which gave the Home Secretary the powers to intern citizens without trial. Bevan called for the nationalisation of the coal industry and advocated the opening of a Second Front in Western Europe to help the Soviet Union in its fight with Germany. Churchill responded by calling Bevan "a squalid nuisance”…”
He said no, or ‘i dont agree’ or ‘thats plain bollocks Winston’ lots of times, and so did many others.
Though to take it further: what i mean by ‘collective decision making’ is not just 10 or 20 ministers working things out, but full scale workers co-operatives. Where all people involved in say, the shoe making factory in Dehli, get to play their part in how that factory is run.
‘change human behaviour and desire.’ - well these change all the time, anyway. slowly sometimes, quickly in other times. the point of an anarchist society is to create a system based on the more positive elements of human behaviour and desire, not on the more negative aspects (as at present with ‘the big C’). YOU also would be better off in that lovely anarchist society, you’d be happier and healthier and pleased to see how much society around you has improved.
Crass
Band meeting with a record company ‘I can market your revolution’. fuck off.
Competition
– actually this is a big misunderstanding, I think (deliberately fostered by the big c, probably, as it does not want us to think of alternatives). There is no reason at all why competition cannot be built into an alternative, non capitalist society. It’s just that the competitions will be focused on creating benefit for the greater good of society, not profit and power. If group A has an idea for some hospital service in your area, and group has another idea – those groups and ideas will run in competition with each other to see which is best. But PROFIT and POWER will not be factors distorting the competition. It will be based on logic and reason - who can argue the case better to the local decision making council. The group/idea that presents the best case wins the ‘competition’ and their idea is put into practice, agreed upon democratically, in a participatory society. No problems.
You said “disprove the economists' claim that humans are naturally competitive, “ But Albert doesn’t say humans are not naturally competitive. as you claim. In that chapter is says: “Some critics of parecon base their objection on the grounds of human nature. “A better economy? Don’t be silly. Human nature precludes it. Humans are greedy, avaricious, self-seeking, consumerist, individualist, antisocial, authoritarian, order-givers and takers.” No mention of competitive.
Capitalism, central problems:
What I’d like to ask you is how can you, as an intelligent person presumably concerned with his fellow human beings, support capitalism? A system that has these features:
• Cheats us of our efforts. The central economic foundation being cheating people out of what they produce. I mean the surplus value idea that if worker A makes $100 worth that day they only go home with $50 or $25 of it, and the owner has the rest.
• Virtually enslaves most people. Casting the vast majority of people into an almost powerless position within their working lives (and wider lives too) while elevating a tiny minority (10%, 1% or perhaps only 0.01%) to positions of emperor like power.
• Uses violence to maintain itself. A system that imposes its power by violence of the mind (regular propaganda), brutal police violence for those considering alternatives, and outright fatal military violence for those trying alternatives.
Those are just three aspects out of others, but already they make capitalism totally unacceptable. Now you may say ‘communism is as bad’, but that does not answer the main point of how you can accept a capitalist system with these three features. So, you may think it does NOT have those features, if so, then please tell me why. Or you may think is DOES have those features but they are acceptable for other reasons. If so, then what are they?
Creativity (submitting book ideas)
It’s a block and barrier to human creativity,ideas and dreams. Because all the ideas we have and plans have to make profit. That defined in the narrow sense of profit for a private person or elite group (NCP – narrow capitalist profit). So that if we have an idea/plan and it is deemed to not make profit or not enough profit then we can not do it. The bank will say ‘no loan, sorry’, the boss will say ‘that’s not profitable, sorry’,or in my case the publisher will say ‘that book wont sell, sorry’. So, it means that, in affect, many and probably most ideas we have will not be given the chance to grow. Because they will not make enough profit. Therefore that filter/focus of NCP prevents human creativity, or refuses to allow it to bloom.
In a parecon the situation would be very different, though not totally. The issue of profit in the wider sense of“An advantageous gain or return; benefit.” would still be there. But that would be decided by the collective who organise the production and consumption needs and abilities. Therefore if I put my new book idea to them, there is a chance that it would be refused official sanction, just as a publisher now may decline the book. But it would not be for NCP reasons, it would not be because it will not make enough private profit for the boss/elite in charge. It would be because the collective has decided the benefit to the area/group is not enough. And that is a very different thing, much easier to accept. As I am part of that area/group myself and I am also invested in what is beneficial for it. Plus I will have had a fair chance to put my proposal forward, openly, and democratically. And a chance to take it to a ‘higher court’ kind of thing if its refused at first. So it will all be above board, open, democratic and I will participate in it. At the present a boss/elite in secret decides the fate of my idea and if they decide it on grounds of a narrowly defined profit to mainly THEM, not people in general. and if they say no, then hard fucking lines, there is the door. This is a hugely different situation, the parecon one would be far better.
AND, it would give more chance for human creativity because the key question will be ‘is it beneficial in some way?’ – now a far wider range of things can get a YES to that question that the way more narrow question ‘will it make enough profit (NCP)?’ The only thing to hold back a yes answers is the resources we have to give towards that – which is reasonable. Now, in capitalism that is NOT the MAIN thing holding back a yes to various ideas/plans/efforts. We waste our resources on a whole bunch of crap. What holds them back is that they will not make enough profit.
Daft idea number 321: “Communism has never worked and will never work (just like my lazy son!)”
Short summary: its kind of HALF true, or quarter true. but its a bit like saying ‘all Japanese are thin’, or ‘all Americans are fat.’ There is rough truth behind those statements somewhere, kind of, but to state it in such a crude way, ‘that’s the way it Is, the end’ is FAR too general, too simple - to the point of being almost useless. certainly not anything that should be said by someone who is interested in trying to understand things in the world. we need to look a lot more deeply… read, research and think about important questions like that. I’m going to start another thread about this tomorrow.
Communism cant succeed - again, a commonly made point. its a cliche that 90% of people saying it dont really understand. it does not take in account how capitalism does not work at all well, and has often fucked things up a lot. it does not take into account the aspects of communism that did work rather well. how about the major triumph of communist russia - remember them defeating Hitler? (not on their own, obviously - but they were definitely the largest reason, i think they had twice as many soldiers in the field as all the other allies put together in 1944/45). so, the basic problem with this cliched view is that is does not consider the ACTUAL facts of history or the theories. it just makes a blanket statement, based on a cliched view. its not the kind of comment an intelligent person should make without really thinking about the ideas first.
Secondly, a more precisely - what they call communist was never really communism. even in 1918 and 1919 various people SAW and SAID ‘this is not communism, this will get fucked up’ (im paraphrasing! - but i can show actual quotes if you like)
Next, why do business people admire and push a positive ‘can do’ approach to business but when it comes to the organsiing of society they are so defeatist, negative and weak?
Communism was tried and it failed
it should be well known by now that the big mess that the Russians and Chinese made of communism does NOT mean that therefore capitalism is the ONLY way, the end. That a big mistake: 1. There are various ways of organising society open to us. its not just communism OR capitalism. 2. it was known by quite a few, even in 1917/18, that the bolsheviks were taking the wrong road. which means that another way WAS possible then, and still is. 3. Why do we need to be so defeatist and wimpy? If we fail our driving test once, twice, even three times do we then conclude 'Ok, its 100% impossible for me to ever drive a car!' Or do we stay strong and focused on our goal - think about what we've done wrong, and do better next time?
why do business people admire and push a positive ‘can do’ approach to business but when it comes to the organsiing of society they are so defeatist, negative and weak?
Another analogy regarding the rather silly idea of dismissing communism 100% because of the abuses of Soviet Russia: If I came to your house SAYING I was a carpenter, but within ten minutes it became pretty clear that I was very bad at carpeting and was making a big mess of your house, would you then logically conclude “ALL carpeting is false, in fact I now proclaim carpeting to be an impossibility.” Might that not be a slight over exaggeration? Might is not be more reasonable to think ‘THIS man is not a real carpenter, but other maybe be able to do it better.’
Another analogy from me regarding how the bolsheviks fucked up communism and how people have made a big mistake of thinking that therefore communism is impossible:
You try to hold an Beatles themed party. And everyone comes dressed up looking cool, ready to rock. but the band turn up all dressed as the Elvis. You say to them:
‘Actually that is not what we want - we want a Beatles theme’,
And they reply: ’This is the Beatles, this is what the Beatles look like.’
‘No, thats what Elvis looks like.’
‘No, this IS the Beatles - and if you say its not again then we are going to hit you. and if you still maintain that this is not the Beatles then we are going to shot you - comrade!’
And they proceed to enforce their distorted fucked up theme through violence and later through a variety of techniques of spying, conformism, fear,etc.
If that happened would it then be a reasonable and logical thing to decide: ‘Holding a Beatles themed night is an impossibility. It’s been tried and it turned into something totally different and horrible. In fact, Beatles themed parties are against human nature’.
Or would it be far more realistic to say: ‘Those violent thugs ruined what could have been a really nice party. We will have to plan better next time.’
minute you lose your legally binding democratically established rights and freedoms
stalin and mao etc were dictators who caused all that trouble by their psychotic or at least neurotic characteristics and unchecked power.
If the main question is the one about multiple groups claiming they were communists, and all failing, then I don't think we've put Occam's razor behind us. Which would be simpler to imagine, that many people have co-opted the name of communism, and only managed to get "outed" as not actually communists once they fail, or that several attempts at communism were made, at which point human nature made the exploits clear, they were, of course, exploited, and the inevitable resulting collapse allowed fellow communists to then communicate them, leaving us none the wiser, for the next time a similar plan gets tried.
I find the latter more likely, given human nature to do as little as possible relative to the return value. You probably know that trait as "greed".
I think your points are partially good ones. which is already good since in my experience many supporters of capitalism can not put a decent, reasonable, well considered sentence together to defend capitalism or to criticise alternatives. this page confirms that again and again. but you can! clearly there is SOMETHING wrong with the attempts at so called communism, since they mostly created a state that i would certainly not support. however your points dont persuade me.
1. ‘many people have co-opted the name of communism, and only managed to get "outed" as not actually communists once they fail’ This is 100% wrong, factually, in historically verifiable ways. did you not see my quote above? Here again: “It is vital to form a socialist govt from all the parties of the Soviet...we consider that a purely Bolshevik govt has no choice but to maintain itself by political terror. We cannot follow this course." - this was noted by a moderate communist in Russia, late 1917. that is, in the very first months of the revolution. not in the 1970s once everyone could see what an arse they had made of it, but RIGHT in the beginning. and there are actually quite a few such account, from then. so it is definitely not a question of people saying ‘ah they were not real communist’ only AFTER failure. Is that clear now? That claim need never be made again, by anyone.
2. ‘at which point human nature made the exploits clear,’ - now this one is far more tricky, and its the BIGGY. its probably a point that we may never agree on, unless you come to see the light of course! firstly what IS human nature? not at all clear. how much is is prone to greed? (which is a word from SCOTS actually, from my country) and how much is it prone to co-operation? Capitalist like you think the greed part is dominant. and communist/anarchist think the co-operation part is just as big, probably bigger. As far as i can see the co-operation, consideration for others, desire for mutual benefit IS a larger part of our nature than greed, and narrow self interest.
Then the next question becomes - how is that human nature affected by culture? Or rather it now becomes a question of BEHAVIOUR , rather than base nature. We can see very clearly that it IS affected by culture, strongly. different levels of violence, suicide, drunkness etc across cultures proves that pretty strongly. I think that is not a contentious point. the more unclear point is this: would humans act in an even MORE co-operative way in a society that was geared towards such mutual aid? And: are humans encouraged to act in an even more destructively greedy and selfish way in capitalism? i think the answer to both is yes. But this is a very difficult issue to get clear.
3. ‘they were, of course, exploited, and the inevitable resulting collapse’ - again not a clear issue, but actually there are solutions to this, that 99% of capitalist have never heard of, it seems. The answer is that it is probably more a case of the way the system is organised, rather than base human nature. it is probably possible for us clever humans to create a system in which elites dont dominate, in which there is very little room for exploitation, in which armed groups of thugs would find it very difficult to take over, etc. this is where the BAD system put in place by Stalin and Mao etc proved disasterous. as the moderate russian in late 1917 said, the tight control by the leading bolsheviks would need a type of terror to maintain it and then we are already, even at the start, not communist. they created a bad SYSTEM. and then that system made a mess. answer: create a better system. we ARE capable of that. for example the PARECON system (that my book PARECOMIC is about) has a clear, detailed plan as to how we could prevent elite domination and maintain a genuinely participatory, democratic, anarchistic type system. it can be done - probably!
Contract depends on Community
The fact that company A and company B honour the contract that they sign depends on morals, ethics, norms of behaviour from outside the business world. Norms of moral behaviour which stress keeping your word, treating others with respect, decent behaviour, co-operation with others… that is to say: socialist values!
Capital
Capital is the result of productive human action not immediately consumed but directly employed in the pursuit of additional goods. Adam Smith defines capital as "That part of a man's stock which he expects to afford him revenue is called his capital."
In a fundamental sense, capital consists of any produced thing that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work—a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. Capital is an input in the production function. Homes and personal autos are not usually defined as capital but as durable goods because they are not used in a production of saleable goods and services.
In classical economic schools of thought[particularly in Marxist political economy,[5] capital is money used to buy something only in order to sell it again to realize a financial profit. For Marx capital only exists within the process of economic exchange—it is wealth that grows out of the process of circulation itself, and for Marx it formed the basis of the economic system of capitalism. In more contemporary schools of economics, this form of capital is generally referred to as "financial capital" and is distinguished from "capital goods".
As to your point about needing capital to do various creative business things: actually we do NOT need it. Or rather we DO, now - but only in this system. in another system, the SA system as i now call it (socialist-anarchist) we could not need capital. we would need resources, we would need planning, we would need hard work, would need assets used in production of stuff. yes, all that. but not ‘capital’ as it is now understood in capitalism. we might call it instead ‘social stock’.
It's much harder to attack people of your own kind and friends and family, than strangers of different colors and from different countries.
The most common adjective (pejorative) used by conservatives to describe liberals is 'preachy' -
conservatives pride themselves on is being practical.
Is it practical to support an economic system that is destroying the planet? to insist that an invisible creature in the sky hates gays? these are mad impracticalities!
I want what is fair and decent and moral for everyone. Who could possibly disagree with that?
“for every liberal who thinks all conservatives are brain washed and just blindly following authority, there's a conservative that thinks all liberals are lazy thieves trying to get by without actually doing anything.”
- indeed, I agree. For sure, not ALL conservatives are ‘brain washed and just blindly following authority’, and most are perfectly nice intelligent people. but that point does not get us much further. The problem is what conservatism encourages,
any ability that conservatives have to think independently is DESPITE the conservatism, not because of it.
Adam’s basic point about ‘liberals and conservatives’ having a lot in common and the same basic interests at heart is clearly true, just because we are all humans. But the thing is that in the process of building bridges and understanding between different sides what will need to happen is a 90% decrease in the conservative stuff! Its not a 50/50 mix. The unquestioning acceptance of tradition, authority and revelation stuff has to go WAY down. But the ‘liberal’ focus on science, humanism, equality and respect for all does not have to decrease, it needs to increase. All the smart, independent minded, decent humans beings who are currently holding themselves back with the ‘the conservative habit’ will need to kick out that drug, baby! Get healthy and join a mental gym.
Communism has been tried
To look at the history of human efforts to create a ‘better society’, see how difficult it’s been and then to conclude ‘Ok, that’s it. the whole things impossible. Lets give up.’…is a bit like reading the Highway Code, seeing how complicated it is and throwing our arms up in defeat ‘Ok, its clearly way too much. This whole driving thing is impossible!’
ul and find high quality men. i think it is probably true.
Capitalism is the only way.
We cant say that for sure, its not proven. we can only say that 'It seems that way, based on what Ive seen' or 'based on what history tells us'. But there is a big problem with that idea, which is that most of us have not seen enough or learned enough, or explored enough to really be able to judge this issue. A lot have been deliberately hidden from us, or pushed aside. So most of us don’t have a reliable way to judge.
Capitalism is like a jealous girl who says of the pretty girl next door 'She is no good, she has a disease'. She spreads such lies because she does not want her boyfriend to TRY the girl next door! Because if he tries her he might find out that the girl next door is much nicer.
Capitalism is perfectible? We can improve it?
No, Capitalism IS not good enough - its basic state is bad. and never will be good enough. its impossible. Just like taking poison is not good, and more poison does not make it better. Capitalism is like a drug that makes us feel and look good - for a short time - then destroys us.
Clichés
as the saying goes "In a time of decadence, to look backwards is to look forwards." and in terms of Japanese TV (or any crap TV) we might say " When surrounded by mind numbing cliches to swear like fuck is to stand up for honesty."
To look at the history of human efforts to create a ‘better society’, see how difficult it’s been and then to conclude ‘Ok, that’s it. the whole things impossible. Lets give up.’…is a bit like reading the Highway Code, seeing how complicated it is and throwing our arms up in defeat ‘Ok, its clearly way too much. This whole driving thing is impossible!’
ul and find high quality men. i think it is probably true.
Capitalism is the only way.
We cant say that for sure, its not proven. we can only say that 'It seems that way, based on what Ive seen' or 'based on what history tells us'. But there is a big problem with that idea, which is that most of us have not seen enough or learned enough, or explored enough to really be able to judge this issue. A lot have been deliberately hidden from us, or pushed aside. So most of us don’t have a reliable way to judge.
Capitalism is like a jealous girl who says of the pretty girl next door 'She is no good, she has a disease'. She spreads such lies because she does not want her boyfriend to TRY the girl next door! Because if he tries her he might find out that the girl next door is much nicer.
Capitalism is perfectible? We can improve it?
No, Capitalism IS not good enough - its basic state is bad. and never will be good enough. its impossible. Just like taking poison is not good, and more poison does not make it better. Capitalism is like a drug that makes us feel and look good - for a short time - then destroys us.
Clichés
as the saying goes "In a time of decadence, to look backwards is to look forwards." and in terms of Japanese TV (or any crap TV) we might say " When surrounded by mind numbing cliches to swear like fuck is to stand up for honesty."