|
U-Know! Forum » Do away with the Dough! |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
stray 2057 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 16:14
|
||
|
Try Aristotles thesis on politics. 'The problem with money is people will see that it's sole purpose is to hoard it without end' or similar, he said, roundabout the time currency was first emerging. Naturally, this can said to be true of any resource. So the order of the day, to prevent greed, will probably have to be a mixture of big baseball bats, attitude readjustments and a brainwashed sense of social responsibility ;). I have no answers, I think about this a lot. The models based on collectivism (anarchy form) to some extent wll always force a denial of some technology (back to the land, and we'll all get about on horses maaan!!), which I think is a bad thing. Soviet style mini communisms feeding into a great democratically responsible whole is the only thing I see as a possible working method. Such. You vote for your farmer, distributor, manager, street party organiser etc, etc. Full accountability of those who have control, by those who they control. If their being greedy the opportunity to 'capitalise' on their position will be removed by a vote of those ppl it affects. Rhiannon : By growth I mean expansion thru exploitation, intensive methods, industrialisation and technology. not, in itself a bad thing, but usually very greed motivated from feudalism thru to current systems. I mean, if it wasn't for capitalism we wouldnt have our own Computers, Washing Machines, one house per family etc, etc. As Engels said we are units of consumption as well as production, well, he sadi the family was. We'd still be little consumption/production units under, say, an Anarchist Communist system. But we'd be efficient ones that don't overproduce (the only reason to overproduce is to generate profit), or overconsume (which we have to do to under capitalism)
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 16:25
|
||
|
Yeah it would have to be an international system. Globalisation shows that the profit system is international so any alternative has gotta be. (even though capitalistism does foster nationalism & ideas of nation states - particularly as they can play countries off against each other and promote rivalry & even conflict). No nation can be totally autonomus and self sufficient. Any change would have to appeal to people internationally. Unlike The Old Russian Revolution who's brutal coup just did not appeal to the advanced & organised workers in the West. A revolution will have to be carried out through the minds and the action of the people and not by some vanguard seizing the state machinery. There seems to a lot of pessimism around here 'I'd like to see a better world, but people won't accept it, or capitalism is too strong or good, it won't happen in my life time, etc'. If people don't think a total change will come in their life time, then that doesn't mean you have to accept the Status Quo. Surely even if just the seeds of a better world are sown in your lifetime than it better than leaving the system unchallenged. If through Direct Action, Education and raising awareness the CounterCulture is stronger but you pop your clogs before a revolution ever happens then isn't better to have even at least just contributed to the future forces of change. The old FarLeft groupings would tell people a revolution will happen soon. Why artificially force the pace of change like Lenin & others tried to do. The artifcial forced change Regimes have done much to discredit Socialism & thus strengthen capitalism. So in the end forced change has set back any change that will come. Stray! your right about greed being part of the conditioning of the system. If the world changed then there may be still be some greedy people around, but they will be people conditioned by the pre-revolutionary MindSet. How can people be greedy when everything would be easily obtainable, if they are, it would be up to the local community to do something about it. Eventually after a generation or two if anyone is greedy in a society which is not based on greed (which would be a very rare occurence) then they would have to be psychologically impaired. It is capitalism that encourages people to be competitive. Stray is right to say people won't have anything to be greedy about. Four Winds! any punishment if any, is up to how the future community organises it's self and it would be arrogant to assume we could tell a more enlightened world what they should do about any one overconsuming. The local community saying 'stop Pigging out on all that free bread & milk you Fat Bastard' could be an idea. When Gary Clail and his On U sound system sung 'there's something wrong with human nature' he was so wrong! It not whats wrong with human nature it is what is wrong with human nurture. MonkeyBoy
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 16:44
|
||
|
No one here is taking into account VANITY !!!!! People are vain. There's no disputing that. From the day (wo)man saw the first pretty shell and found out how to make it into jewelry there has been vanity. vanity breeds greed greed breeds capitalism.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 16:54
|
||
nah, vanity breeds individualism, not greed. I'll swap you my little black dress for your spring onions m8 ;)
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 17:05
|
||
But my spring onions are the best in the world. I want two dresses for them.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 17:16
|
||
|
reiterate. 'from each according to their means, to each according to their needs'. Meet Mr Baseball Bat, u socially irresponsible capitalist pig ;). Anyhoo, distribution would have to be local warehouses connected to a central international chain. And each locality would be run by democratically elected bods. The essentials of life would be free, the luxuries well.. erm... something better than we currently have. You put in what you can, you take what you need, not what you want. Justification will be required on some level, though noone should be denied luxuries. You're right, this is the crux of the problem, and I'm skirting it by saying those who make the decisions of who can have what are democratically elected. It's got nothing to do with vanity however, it's a new economic problem that needs sorting a lot better than my black & white political brain can manage. Lets hope it's not a calculation sytem based on ratios of production though, that'll still end up weighted against the poorer members of society.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 17:20
|
||
|
>> Lets hope it's not a calculation sytem based on >> ratios of production though, that'll still end up >> weighted against the poorer members of society. I think that is one of my biggest concerns. All animals are equal, but some animals etc....
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 17:43
|
||
|
What would be the value of Jewelry and diamonds in a world not based on trade but need's. Apart from their scarcity what would be their true worth - gold won't be used as reserves to give peices of paper(money) value. By the way it is because money is not worth the paper it's written on that we have inflation. Four Winds! check out summit to do with Marx'x theory of Historical Materialism - it doesn't have to be some biased extremist text, a good appraisal by some independent academic would be good. From what swims around my head - I'll try and give a brief synopsis. Trade didn't always exist, and as Stray points out it still doesn't in some tribes. People lived a hunter gatherer existence, dubbed Primitive Communism, where the neccessary means of survival were shared amongst the tribe. Times of shortage for one tribe may have lead to taking form another tribe so rivalry developed. The big change was when man developed agriculture so land was enclosed and out of this developed private property. Agricultural Goods needed to be exchanged so barter developed and so did the concept of trade. Also rival tribe members when captured were put to forced work so the system of slavery developed. The biggest civilisation being based on slavery being the Roman Empire. Ownership of the land developed and in the end some person (eg. a Baron) owned large amounts of land and people (peasants) were alloted their piece of land which they worked on for the rest of their lives. So they were tied to thier bit of land and the Baron for all their lives. Also the peasants had to have knights to protect their land. A hierachal hereditary system system developed - Feudalsim. Now we come to capitalism. This came about when the ownership of wealth became more important then just owning the land. Across Europe the emerging capitalist class overthrew the Feudal order - first to happen in England with The English Civil war. There's lots more to mention but space and attention span doesn't permit me. The Industrial Revolution followed due to the new freedom of the capitalist class & advances in Technology. The ordinary person could now choose to have a different boss exploit him, while under Feudalism he was tied to his land and his bastard Baron. Anyway, Marx envisaged Socialism as a progression from capitalism. Where the workers actually owned the means of production and where goods where produced for needs and not for sale. Marx saw Socialism as an advancement from Capitalism which utilised all the previous systems progress in terms of the means of production & technology but would be organised in such a way that it would overcome capitalism's inability to provide for everyones needs. Marx gave socialism (as well as Capitalism) a real scientific analysis. So much so that even pro-capitalists took on board some of his theories. There is nothing Utopian about Marx's theories. He pointed out that the contradictions inherent in each of the previous sytems (or stages) sowed the seeds for it's own downfall and with each system the class that developed under it formed the new ruling class. Yours MonkeyBoy
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 18:04
|
||
|
I am aware of these theories and ideas but they are ideals. In a small tribal community you still have rank - a chief. everyone may do their fair share and be provided for but there is still a heirachy. This promotes desire. e.g. Only chiefs can own the prettist feathers. If a lump of gold is found it is the chiefs etc .... And to say competition did not exist before trade and agriculture is crap. Never seen two dogs fight over a bone? Human nature is effectively animal instinct - we are a long way from getting around that fact. No matter how well 'educated' we become we'll not get away from it. These are my own cynical views of Humanity I'm afraid to say.
|
|||
|
MonkeyBoy 1008 posts |
Jun 25, 2002, 18:51
|
||
|
If the dogs had the means, know how and technology to divide the bone between them, would they still fight over it? Humans do have animal instincts in the back of their brain. A true democratic society would appeal to higher brain functions rather than base animal instincts. Humans don't fuck in the street like dogs sometimes do. A ruler of a tribe may have the finest feathers, but if he was a representative selected by the tribe he could be removed if he tried to take the best feathers for himself - this is a hypothetical statement as in tribal days people did not have the awareness to have accountable elected representatives. The ruler of the tribe would have been the greatest warrior and hunter so it would have been advantageous for other members of the tribe to learn from him, thus to increase the amount of food, hide and bones for tools. The tribe & the chief may have been more symbiotic than a purely exploitative arrangement.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
