Re: Digital Monoculture
-- >From: "Ray E. Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Digital Monoculture >Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 10:07 PM > > Hi Tom, > Sitting here with a computer that more resembles a "Hot > Rod" and that makes me very sorry not to have taken the > auto mechanics course that my mother insisted upon and > I resisted. Sitting here with a machine that is not made > by a big monopoly or with a decent warrenty. A machine > that the small businessman, who sold it to me at an inflated > price and then went bankrupt, had promised service and > quality for four years. A machine that I must now spend > time learning how to be an electrician, a mechanic and a > programmer. A machine that takes more time then I can > spend working on it. Thomas: I do detect a note of frustration here and I can sympathize. However, - this is the same as a "but", I would offer another explanation to support the monopoly theory I have been putting forth. Large companies, having the benefit of volume and profit in manufacturing, as well as profit from sales often make it difficult for a small retailer to have enough margin to stay in business. I would venture that if the person who sold you the computer could enter this conversation, his defence might be the same as mine. The large monopolies set the price so low for their product and give him such a small mark-up that it becomes impossible for the small business to survive. In other words, it is the large Company that has done you in. Now, if you had bought from Dell or Compact, there is no guareetee that you would be better off. I'm sure with a little inquiry, many posters could tell you the horror stories of dealing with a name brand. > > I never worked on "hot rods" I bought new cheap cars so > that I could spend time with my dates or traveling the country > rather than sitting in the shop. Thomas: My answer has often been to buy used. Not only do I not pay the big price and all the profits, the equipment has probably been broken in, is working fine and I usually get a pile of software thrown in. My two cents - go look for a used machine for a couple of hundred bucks or sometimes it just comes as a gift. Ray: The question today is whether > developing new art is more important than learning the inner > workings of this mongrel. Thomas: In my opinion, developing art is more important. > > So next time I will buy Dell or Gateway or some other big > company product that has a more "economie of scale" > attitude and will take less of my time. > > Those Russian airplanes are coming in at half the > price and have a lot of goodies on them with less > attitude. > > Does it work? That should be the answer before, > will it sell? > > up with monoculture! > > REH > > > > > > > > Thomas Lunde wrote: > >> What to me is surprising is the failure to recognize that the natural >> structure of capitalism is towards monopoly. Monopoly is attained and >> maintained by the concept of profit. Mergers, stock ownership, credit, all >> fall to those who have been the beneficiaries of large consistent profits >> which give them the surplus to absorb more of any given market area or >> product area or as in the case of stocks, holding massive amounts of wealth, >> much like a cow that can continually be milked. There is no social benefit >> to this, no moral value that can be extrapolated from this, it just is a >> nice byproduct of a system design. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> Thomas Lunde >> >> -- >> >From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: FW: Digital Monoculture >> >Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 2:01 PM >> > >> >> > While not directly related to FW, this seems sufficiently interesting to >> > pass along FYI >> > >> > -- >> > From: Gary Chapman >> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Subject: L.A. Times column, 7/5/99 >> > Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:30AM >> > >> > Friends, >> > >> > Below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, Monday, July 5, 1999. >> > As usual, please feel free to pass this around, but please retain the >> > copyright notice. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > If you have received this from me, Gary Chapman >> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), you are subscribed to the listserv >> > that sends out copies of my column in The Los Angeles Times and other >> > published articles. >> > >> > If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE from this listserv, send mail to >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], leave the subject line blank, and >> > put "Unsubscribe Chapman" in the first line of the message. >> > >> > If you received this message from a source other than me and would >> > like to subscribe to the listserv, the instructions for subscribing >> > are at the end of the message. >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Monday, July 5, 1999 >> > >> > DIGITAL NATION >> > >> > Troubling Implications of Internet's Ubiquity >> > >> > By Gary Chapman >>
Re: Irish Workfare
-- >From: "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Irish Workfare >Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM Thomas: First, this is not my writing, but a quote typed from a book - a book written by a popular author in 1912. They used different forms in writing than what we use today, so, sometimes you have to work a little to get the idea behind the cumbersome style. > >> The problem turns, remember, upon the control of the means of production. >> Capitalism means that this control is vested in the hands of few, while >> political freedom is the appanage of all. It this anomaly cannot endure, >> from its insecurity and from its own contradiction with its presumed moral >> basis, you must either have a transformation of one or of the other of the >> two elements which combined have been found unworkable. These two factors >> are (1) The ownership of the means of production by a few; (2) The freedom >> of all. To solve capitalism you must get rid of restricted ownership, or of >> freedom, or of both. >> > Eva asked: > What political freedom?? (and what the *^%$* is appanage, the > dictionary didn't find any means to connect it to your sentence.) Thomas: Yes, I stumbled on this word appanage too when I was transcribing and I was tempted to subsitute the word "appendage" but decided that perhaps I just did not have enough education, so I left it as written. Now, as to political freedom. Belloc maintains in greater detail in other parts of the book, but alludes to it here in the phrase, "this anomaly cannot endure" his perception of the basic contradiction between belief systems. On the one hand, the belief that democracy gives individuals freedom by allowing them to choose who represents them and how they will be represented by the political platforms of various parties - and I agree, this is a very questionable freedom - and the anomaly that allows those with capital to monopolize the means of production and thereby derive others of their economic freedom. Eva continues: > > Your premise is false. Capitalism doesn't mean political freedom, > most of the time not even nominally. Economic unequality > cannot provide political equality, when economic power means > political power. > Therefore there is no reason why > non-capitalism should lead necessarily to non-freedom. Thomas: You have prefectly made Belloc's point. Capitalism is the antithesis of political freedom, which is why he argues that the dominance of capitalism will lead to slavery. The anomaly between the two belief systems is that you cannot have capitalism and freedom or you cannot have freedom and capitalism. Eva continues: > > The conditions needed for > a successful/democratic socialist transformation were missing > in the historical events so far. This is straightforward analysis > of historical data. A successful transformation has not > happened yet, which does not mean it cannot, when the conditions are > right. New systems have this nature of not yet ever being around. Thomas: Again, you must be studying Belloc in your spare time. He would have no trouble agreeing with your conclusions and the difference between 1912 and 1999 is just history. We are still stuck with capitalism because it successfully buys the collaboration of each elected government. The socialists have never had the capital to compete for the politicians support and only occasionally, as at an election time, have the politicians had to defer to the will of the people. But Belloc's observations and conclusions are frightening. We either have capitalism with slavery or we have democracy without capitalism. Given the brainwashing that we have all went through from our culture, it is inconcievable for any new thought to gain sufficient momentum to introduce change. > > >> Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. >> Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be >> liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In >> the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. We >> have, therefore, so far as this factor of freedom is concerned, no choice >> between a number of changes, but only the opportunity of one, to wit, the >> establishment of slavery in place of freedom. Eva says: > > You suggest, that people are "free to work" at present? > Because you are wrong in that case. Nobody, who > HAS TO get up and go to work for an income that > is necessary for living a life that is considered to be > satisfactory in the given social/cultural setup, is free. Thomas: NOT ME! People have to work - or starve. The difference in my lifetime is that we have moved from a workforce in which the government supported me while my skills could not be used by capitalists until those skills were needed again, to the present concept which is that my skills are irrelevant and that I must work at whatever is available. In the firs
Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
Dear Eva:
Once again, you have cut through the BS of my thinking. On the one hand, I
can find rational answers such as the Basic Income which I am sure will
provide a corrective for the capitalistic system. I can also agree with
others answers, such as WesBurt's proposals or some of the thoughts of Tom
Walker.
Then I enlarge the problem by thinking/reading of population, energy,
resource depletion, or the book I picked up at the library today called Dark
Grey which deals with the demographics of an aging population and how
economics has no answer in providing a system in which we can save enough or
tax enough for a pension system for the elderly. This morning, I read how a
research team in California are onto what they call the immortality cell in
which they have been able to extend the life of a fruit fly up to three
times it's normal lifespan. A couple of days ago, I read an online book
called Can America Survive in which the author makes a very convincing case
that the Earth could support a sustainable population of only 5 million
hunter/gathers and 5 million living in an industrial/technological society.
Though we might quibble with the numbers, it seems rational to believe that
we can't keep 6 billion mouths and assholes functioning on this small planet
indefintely.
And yes, every state is debt and almost every person on the planet is in
debt to someone, somewhere. So what happens when a chain of non-payment
begins? It boggles my mind. Unlike you, though, I do have some small
comfort - death happens to us all and I chose to believe in an afterlife -
in fact many afterlives. I guess we'll have to each die before we find out
who is right on that belief.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
--
>From: "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
>Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM
>
> This is a utopia if based on capitalist
> economics. (Or have I already mentioned this?)
> Welfare capitalism was tried, and when the upswing
> collapsed, it failed. Even the richest states are in debt,
> even when they only spend pitifully small percentages
> on welfare.
>
> Eva
>
>> Thomas:
>>
>> One of things I have always like about Galbraith is that he accepts that the
>> poor are entitled and deserve some joy and comfort and security in their
>> lives. Something which the majority of the moderate and overly affluent want
>> to deny. It is as if poorness is not enough, a little suffering is good for
>> the soul, especially if it someone elses suffering.
>>
>> You know, being poor is not so bad, and most of us who experience it find
>> ways to still enjoy our lives. However, it is the constant pressure from
>> those more fortunate that somehow if we have sex, go to a movie, have a
>> picnic in the park we are violating our status in life. Give us a basic
>> income and get off our back, I think would be endorsed by the majority of
>> the poor. Allow us to have dreams for our children and we will live
>> modestly.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Thomas Lunde
>>
>> --
>> >From: "S. Lerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca
>> >Subject: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
>> >Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 9:52 AM
>> >
>>
>> > Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
>> > Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
>> > receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
>> > reprinted from The Guardian." )
>> >
>> > Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
>> > and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
>> > large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
>> > in the U.S.
>> > The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
>> > be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
>> > afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said, will seize
>> > upon the income and won't work. So it is now with more limited welfare, as
>> > it is called. Let us accept some resort to leisure by the poor as well as
>> > by the rich."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
[Fwd: "natural" disasters a misnomer, UN leader says]
US leaders (incl Al Gore) better change their tune or they may end up isolated from the rest of the planet when the next recession arrives. Steve --- "NATURAL" DISASTERS A MISNOMER, UN LEADER SAYS GENEVA, Switzerland, July 6, 1999 (ENS) - "It is a tragic irony that 1998, the penultimate year of the Disaster Reduction Decade, was also a year in which natural disasters increased so dramatically," United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Monday. Annan was speaking at the closing ceremonies for the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) at the International Conference Centre of Geneva. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999 For full text and graphics visit: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jul99/1999L-07-06-04.html Kenn
Re: Some Thoughts From "Can America Survive"
Thomas Lunde wrote: > The Internet gives the > tradional and eccentric, the conventional and the doomsayer a forum for > discussion. Is this not futurework? As each of us read - and agree or not > with each posting, are we not retraining ourselves for some valuable but yet > unseen futurework? I believe we are. I made a similar point in a previous post: Others who are retired find a useful outlet for pent-up energies and frustrations by exploiting the internet. In that process valuable skills are being acquired, but who thinks of that? Suddenly one may awaken and realize: Hey, I'm a webmaster! There are probably numerous instances of hobbies, volunteering, etc. being turned into full-time or part-time jobs. This sort of thing also occurs during a full-time occupation and can result in the founding of a new business. This process may also be related to invention - the sudden insight that emerges from the juxtaposition of often unrelated ideas and leads to a new product or social innovation. -- http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
INROADS
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:06:56 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inroads #8 is on the newstands. It is 248 pages long, and has more and, overall, better articles than any previous issue. Inroads fills a void that the daily press, driven by deadlines, and academic journals, stuck in the jargon carved ruts of their disciplines, cannot. In Inroads, academics and journalists write free of the constraints of their professions, and a broad range of policy wonks make their case. A major political event this year is the signing of a social union agreement. Claude Ryan's lead article is the most thorough analysis yet written of the agreement. INROADS #8 returns once again to the controversial matter of language policy and the place of francophones in Canada. Charles Castonguay takes on StatsCan's unwarranted optimism over the fate of francophones outside Quebec. Linda Cardinal analyses how Ottawa's version of official bilingualism has pitted francophones inside and outside Quebec against one another. Ray Conlogue asks why francophones are absent from most English-Canadian artistic production. Editor John Richards writes a eulogy for Camille Laurin. >From Quebec to the West. In this issue's Inroads roundtable, editor Arthur Milner assembled a wide range of articulate Albertans and allowed them to dissect the contemporary state of their province. Gordon Gibson tackles the Nisga'a Treaty and helps those east of the Rockies understand why it has become a subject of heated public debate in BC. Phil Resnick analyses incidents of political correctness in three universities. The third INROADS editor, Henry Milner, was out of the country during much of the past year, which prompted him to solicit articles on contemporary Europe. His personal contribution is a journalistic report from the campaign trail in Germany and Sweden during their elections late last year. Axel van den Berg reports on research contrasting attitudes among workers and union leaders in Sweden and Canada. Eric Shaw explains why he prefers his Labour Party to be "old" rather than "new." In a chapter from his forthcoming book, Larry Pratt explores public attitudes towards mental illness, and the struggle required to get sustained public attention to the needs of the mentally ill. There's more. Bill Schabas wrote in INROADS #6 on the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. In a moving account, he returns to the scene. Paul Reed and Gary Caldwell explain why people in Saskatchewan are more civic minded than Quebecers. Robert Campbell explores why "snail mail" is more sluggish in Canada than in many other countries, and Laurent Dobuzinskis compares Canadian policy institutes' take on globalization. There's also Harvey Schachter's selection from the Inroads chatline, in which readers exchanged perceptions of Quebec politics in the runup to the recent provincial election and indulged in some Proustian recollections of their youthful political attitudes. For more information: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Henry Milner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professeur Associé, Département de science politique, Université Laval Fellow, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University 3777 ave. Kent, Montreal (QC) Canada, H3S 1N4 Information about Inroads-L The Inroads WWW Site is located at: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~inroads/ To post to the INROADS-L list, send e-mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" To unsubscribe, send e-mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe inroads-l Questions for the list owners to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" *
FW: Soapbox
In one of Thomas Lunde's postings of July the seventh, he commented on a passage from an article by Ulrich Beck. In part, he said: "This kind of thinking and these kind of questions need to brought before the public. These are the kinds of questions that a true democratic society would consider of value to discuss. **How do we bring the right problems before the populace?** How do we contribute to those who are articulate so that they can espouse these questions. Now it is true, that the answers of society may be different from my view - or your view, but I think we could agree, that these are the ideas a democratic populace should evaluate and decide." This is, of course, one of the primary questions that must be answered - before it is too late. It is obvious that, with each passing year, the division between those who lead and those who follow - whether they like it or not - grows wider. With each passing year the grip of television and other entertainment media grows stronger and as it does, the availability and use of alternate sources of news and analysis dwindles. Without an informed electorate, at some time in the reasonably near-future, change, except by violence, will become impossible. An informed electorate would be a literate one that understands the necessity of considering "these kinds of questions" and understands the necessity of discussing them. This is a very practical question and one that many may not feel comfortable with, but one that any person sincerely interested in these problems must face. Is there any way that a bunch of academics can commandeer a mass media and deliver it to those who are our concern? Or is that an impossibility and the only way is a one-on-one campaign? Can the Internet be utilized? Soapbox? Robert ___ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
Re: Irish Workfare
-- >From: Bob McDaniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: FutureWork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Irish Workfare >Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 8:02 PM > > Just seeking some clarification here. > > Thomas Lunde wrote: > >> >From The Servile State Page 122 >> >> Now there is only one alternative to freedom, which is the negation of it. >> Either a man is free to work and not to work as he pleases, or he may be >> liable to a legal compulsion to work, backed by the forces of the state. In >> the first he is a free man; in the second he is by definition a slave. > > This does not seem to address workfare. Is it not true that a person must first > apply for welfare in order to receive it? If some form of work is required s/he > should be so informed. At that point the applicant may refuse to work > presumably. No legal compulsion there. The person may then turn to > non-governmental sources for aid (charity). Thomas: Good question Dan. Belloc's main idea is that capitalism monoplizes the "means of production" in the hands of the few and by doing that, disenfranchises those who might or could be productive by not allowing them to be productive. Now, consider someone going on welfare and for the sake of this answer, let's eliminate the handicapped, the addicted, etc and assume that the person going on welfare is doing so because they cannot find work, or the work they may be able to find does not give them enough money for their needs. Or they have specialist training and that they are entitled to choose their work in that area in which they had developed expertise. If I was the father of six, minimum wage jobs will not solve my problem. If I was a printer, taking a job as a dishwasher would negate my experience. The welfare recipients problem is that he cannot be productive in the workforce because he cannot find work or work that utilizes his previous experience or skills - ie those controlling the means of production cannot find a use for his labour that would allow them to siphon of a profit from his efforts. Now, capitalism in a pure form would state to that person - go starve. However, the state intervened with a concept of redistribution, which basically alleviated the harsh judgement of capitalism and created a degree of income for the unemployed. Up until about 10 years ago, that was considered fair and acceptable. The tacit understanding was that this minimal help was available to all - unconditionally as a "right" of citizenship. Then came workfare, which phonetically is heard as workfair, but it is far from fair in my opinion. The conditions of societal help then became the negation of a persons "right" to choose his work and he is coerced by the laws of the state to work at whatever the state chooses to demand of him. This was a quantum shift from a free man in a society that valued him to a slave in a society that was going to get it's pound of flesh. As the "capitalists" controlled property and capital, the person unable to work for them is moved into a form of serfdom by the government - who is supposed to protect his basic rights. Now as to your second point, the right to refuse the contract and allow someone of good heart to provide charity is another way of saying that those who are disenfranchised of the right to work by those who own and use the "means of production" for their own personal gain have no common responsibility. The State has moved from a position of supporting the idea of redistributing income through welfare - to one in which the conditions of welfare support is given through enforced labour. So, the State is now in the business of creating slaves. The Capitalists have no responsibility and are free to pursue their aims. Now, truthfully, the citizens should never have been forced to see Welfare funded from their income tax. They are not the ones who disenfranchised the worker by being unable to provide employment. Rather, those who own the means of production, should be taxed for those they disenfranchise - as it is through their system of creating profit that workers do not receive the full benefit of their labours. So, quite frankly, in my opinion it is the capitalists and property owners who should by law be required to provide the "charity" that you speak of. > >> >> >> Thomas: >> >> ... it is the very business class, those >> who, as Belloc identifies as the small minority who control the means of >> production, who find the concepts of Socialism or Welfare state so abhorrent >> to their goals of personal wealth creation who are supporting the political >> moves that are leading the poor into slavery. > > While a definition of "business class" is needed here, we may _pro tem_ > consider it the equivalent of business owners. In my limited experience those > who are really ticked off by many welfare recipients is not the business class > but the so-called working poor, those hard working individuals who barely earn > more than those on welfare who
