Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
> Eva, > > Your stamina (due to beliefs held with religious fervor) is magnificent. > There are internal inconsistencies in your statements. But I have no doubt > that you could redefine terms and make it all fit perfectly. :-) Hence you > win. > > Steve > I have no religious fervor; I do review my opinions if I recieve a good enough reason to do so. You failed to point out those inconsistencies - they are ither not there or you were not good enough to explain your points... I am motivated to strive for a survivable option for the future - so sorry. Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
> The past provides the data from which scenarios of probable futures are > created. Science is the best process we have to calculate those > probabilities. I posted a long bibliography of hierarchies in ecology. You > are a scientist/technologist if I recall. An idealized social structure > that has never existed in the natural world doesn't fit the scenario > building criteria; it is speculative, creative writing. > I cannot see the relevance, we are a qualitatively different species even from our nearest biological relatives. Our level of consciousness gives us the capacity to make our hierarchies different. We were able to grow wings and live in space (and yes, blow each other up) etc. without biological prediction of such feats. Biological sience is not the discipline that should calculate social probabilities. Social evolution is not like biological evolution, even if we happen to be biological beings (at the moment). The sum of the individuals can turn into something different, quantitative change into qualitative change - that is a universal character of matter. Human society is such a biologically not describable entity. For an ET from a distance our cities would look like an ant or termite- nest, but that doesn't mean that the hierarchy has to be the same, especially if it doesn't satisfy the majority of the people. We are not born to be "workers", "queen" etc, our intelligence and a decent upbringing can make all of us fit to all social roles, even if we happen to be all individually very different indeed. > > and we have the capacity > > to change our social structures inside of a few hundred years > > rather then waiting for biological evolution taking it's > > course through thousands of years. > > Whatever life forms do - by definition - is part of biological evolution. > BTW, some scenarios give us less than 100 years to a significant population > crash. Better speed up! > social evolution is not part of biological evolution. Biological evolution is an unconscious process, social evolution can and at a given point of it should become a conscious one. If we don't want to crash like the biological ones. > > Just because chimps live in a particular way, doesn't mean > > same is best for humans. > > "Best" is a subjective judgement based on selected value criteria. Then > free will and effective implementation have to be assumed, neither of which > are unchallenged by social scientists, psychologists & philosophers. > "Best" is obviously the one that allows to survive the biggest number of the species in your biological sence, and the important addition of the human sense of providing all the surviving individuals as much physical and intellectual/emotional satisfaction as possible. Fairly objective criteria in my opinion... I agree, there is no such thing as free will, but there is a definite progress towards it, and when the economical and physiological constraints are minimised we will be a good way towards it. Capitalism is not able to provide the environment for it as it restricts most of mankind with the economical thus social restraint. > > After all - taking your argument - > > our "unnatural" ways made us the more successful species > > in your preferred biological sense. > > Well, you lost me here, Eva. > You keep telling me, that we can only exist on the so far described biological ways. I meant to point out - and I did further above - that we are doing biologically unpredictable things, and in the process we became most successful mammals. (except for rats - but I venture to declare that they are not aware of their prosperity). Eva > Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Eva, Your stamina (due to beliefs held with religious fervor) is magnificent. There are internal inconsistencies in your statements. But I have no doubt that you could redefine terms and make it all fit perfectly. :-) Hence you win. Steve Durant wrote: (SK) > > The past provides the data from which scenarios of probable futures are > > created. Science is the best process we have to calculate those > > probabilities. I posted a long bibliography of hierarchies in ecology. You > > are a scientist/technologist if I recall. An idealized social structure > > that has never existed in the natural world doesn't fit the scenario > > building criteria; it is speculative, creative writing. > > (EDD > I cannot see the relevance, we are a qualitatively different > species even from our nearest biological relatives. > Our level of consciousness gives us the capacity to > make our hierarchies different. We were able to grow wings and > live in space (and yes, blow each other up) etc. > without biological prediction of such feats. > Biological sience is not the discipline that should calculate > social probabilities. Social evolution is not like biological > evolution, even if we happen to be biological beings (at the moment). > The sum of the individuals can turn into something different, > quantitative change into qualitative change - that is a universal > character of matter. Human society is such a biologically not > describable entity.
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
- Original Message - From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I cannot see the relevance, we are a qualitatively different >species even from our nearest biological relatives. This is not true Eva. You are arguing from a vantage point of deliberate ignorance because you are ideologically opposed to scientific information. Which means you are no different than a religious fanatic arguing that your sick children should be prevented from receiving medical care because you don't "believe" in it. Bertrand Russell said that men would rather die than think. He was right. Machiavelli identified the two methods to control most people: deception and force. "Nor did a prince ever lack legitimate reasons by which to color his bad faith. One could cite a host of modern examples and list the many peace treaties, the many promises that were made null and void by princes who broke faith, with the advantage going to the one who best knew how to play the fox. But one must know how to mask this nature skillfully and be a great dissembler. Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." [The Prince] "A corrupt and disorderly multitude can be spoken to by some worthy person and can easily be brought around to the right way, but a bad prince can not be spoken to by anyone, and the only remedy for his case is cold steel." [Discourses] By way of example Eva, you provide the most convincing argument against your own fantastic ideology. In short, you have falsified yourself. Jay
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
What you ignore is, that we are able to evaluate which social structures can be more beneficial for us in the future, and we have the capacity to change our social structures inside of a few hundred years rather then waiting for biological evolution taking it's course through thousands of years. Just because chimps live in a particular way, doesn't mean same is best for humans. After all - taking your argument - our "unnatural" ways made us the more successful species in your preferred biological sense. Eva > >Of course, any and all relations can LOOK hierarchical IF you are > >prepared or intending to see them that way. The question is: are > >they REALLY hierarchical, and THAT requires more than looking. > > Isn't it rather silly to expect me to prove what is demonstrated to > you every day is true? > > Your personal incredulity is not a valid scientific argument. Why > don't you point some society -- or some social primate -- that > doesn't have hierarchy? > > It seems the burden to disprove our everyday experiences -- and > the findings of the scientific community -- is on you. > > Jay > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Durant wrote: (responding to Jay) > > What you ignore is, that we are able to evaluate > which social structures can be more beneficial > for us in the future, The past provides the data from which scenarios of probable futures are created. Science is the best process we have to calculate those probabilities. I posted a long bibliography of hierarchies in ecology. You are a scientist/technologist if I recall. An idealized social structure that has never existed in the natural world doesn't fit the scenario building criteria; it is speculative, creative writing. > and we have the capacity > to change our social structures inside of a few hundred years > rather then waiting for biological evolution taking it's > course through thousands of years. Whatever life forms do - by definition - is part of biological evolution. BTW, some scenarios give us less than 100 years to a significant population crash. Better speed up! > Just because chimps live in a particular way, doesn't mean > same is best for humans. "Best" is a subjective judgement based on selected value criteria. Then free will and effective implementation have to be assumed, neither of which are unchallenged by social scientists, psychologists & philosophers. > After all - taking your argument - > our "unnatural" ways made us the more successful species > in your preferred biological sense. Well, you lost me here, Eva. Steve > > >Of course, any and all relations can LOOK hierarchical IF you are > > >prepared or intending to see them that way. The question is: are > > >they REALLY hierarchical, and THAT requires more than looking. > > > > Isn't it rather silly to expect me to prove what is demonstrated to > > you every day is true? > > > > Your personal incredulity is not a valid scientific argument. Why > > don't you point some society -- or some social primate -- that > > doesn't have hierarchy? > > > > It seems the burden to disprove our everyday experiences -- and > > the findings of the scientific community -- is on you. > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
> To deny human hierarchy, is to deny what is before your eyes everywhere. > Hierarchy is part of every human society, from the shaman, to the Native > American "Chief", to the football quarterback, to priests, to opera singers, > to astronauts, to CEOs, to Joseph Stalin. > > Hierarchy is part of ALL primate societies -- from chimps, to baboons, to > Americans. You must deny what is so utterly obvious because it is > incompatible with your God of Communism. > Stop insulting me, I am totally godless. Human history since the 16 hundreds is the history of fighting social hierarchy. We had no chance yet to win this fight, but that is the only way forward. Social structure is not the same as hierarchy. You are not anti-communist, you are anti-democratic, you are a supremacist madman, who sees humanity with contempt, who sees humanity as chattel to be herded who sees humanity with less dignity than herd-animals, because herd animals do not choose their ways. > Your fruitless struggle to defend your God against science reminds one of > Bellarmino defending his God against science: > I was not aware that socialism was anti-science. Would you evidence this claim. Darvin gave a good theory to biological evolution on Earth. For social progress and the development of galaxies, not to mention particle-physics, you have to use other theories. Darwin is not universal, he described an interesting detail of our material world. Eva > "_ wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that > the Earth moves around the Sun and that the Sun is stationary in the center > of the world and does not move from east to west, is contrary to the Holy > Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held. In witness whereof we > have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this twenty-sixth > day of May, 1616." -- Robertro Cardinal Bellarmino > > "Of all hatreds, there is none greater than that of ignorance against > knowledge." -- Galileo Galilei, June 30, 1616 > > Jay > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
- Original Message - From: Stephen Straker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >share the same idea. What do you mean by "hierarchy"? I can only >guess at what you take "hierarchy" to be. Hierarchy is the natural ordering among primates and many (all?) other social animals. It's the dominant male character, or the "alpha" animal in mamals. If you have two cats, one is the boss. Anthropologists have described "egalitarian" societies, but that does not mean that the people in them do not tend to hierarchy. It means that their particular social system works to keep the dominant animals in check -- to supress the geneitc bias fort dominance. These "egalitarian" societies work because they are small. Community members must be able to "recognize" other community memebers. That limits them to 300 or 400 individuals. It not a question wheither or not human will have rulers, the only question is who shall rule. We are presently ruled by the rich. I would like to see different criteria. It's a fact of life that democracy (no matter how one defines it) is on the way out. To find out more about aimals in politics, see: DARWINISM, DOMINANCE, AND DEMOCRACY: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism, by Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson http://info.greenwood.com/books/0275958/0275958175.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275958175 Jay -- www.dieoff.com
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Jay Hanson wrote (in response to Eva): > >We are not ** common herd animals with some > >higher evolved race of scientists, Jay, wake up from > >this irrational nightmare of yours. > > To deny human hierarchy, is to deny what is before your eyes everywhere. > Hierarchy is part of every human society, from the shaman, to the Native > American "Chief", to the football quarterback, to priests, to opera singers, > to astronauts, to CEOs, to Joseph Stalin. > > Hierarchy is part of ALL primate societies -- from chimps, to baboons, to > Americans. You must deny what is so utterly obvious because it is > incompatible with your God of Communism. Hey, Jay! What is "before my eyes everywhere" is a resting earth with lots of geography. Galileo says (somewhat rhetorically, in the _Dialogue_) that he admires Copernicus for declaring that the earth is actually moving *despite* what his senses most definitely tell him. It requires THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING to get it moving. It is hardly something you just SEE, even through a telescope. Of course, any and all relations can LOOK hierarchical IF you are prepared or intending to see them that way. The question is: are they REALLY hierarchical, and THAT requires more than looking. What may look like hierarchy to you may look to me like cooperative (& equal) social action wherein the cooperators have designated (somewhat arbitrarily & somewhat according to skill) one or more *coordinators*. Plato's _Republic_ may look hierarchical to YOU, but *in theory* it is an arrangement of EQUALS in which people having un-identical abilities are treated EQUALLY according to their innate abilities. Not a hierarchy at all. (This is, of course, according to Plato's THEORY of innate human capacities, a theory which is surely overly simple and spectacularly false; if you are sure it's false, then _The Republic_ looks alot like *ideology*, a conceptual excuse for domination.) Thus, a group with a "chief" may not REALLY be a social hierarchy at all: it just looks that way to people who think that they see a "superior" lording it over "inferiors" and who may see things this way because they are sure that such arrangements are "natural" or "in our genes". > Your fruitless struggle to defend your God against science reminds one of > Bellarmino defending his God against science: To quote an official pronouncement of an officer of the Church as having ANY bearing on this discussion is intellectually irresponsible. It contributes little to understanding. It's rather like quoting the US House Bills of Impeachment (or whatever they're officially called) as sufficient to explain what's been going on in Washington DC for the last year (or 6). The passage you quote from Bellarmine is a notification of the official findings of a Commission of Inquiry (so to speak), which Commission officially ordered Bellarmine to inform Galileo personally of its findings. The Inquiry itself had been provoked by Galileo's repeated insistence, in the absence of proof, that the Copernican hypothesis is TRUE. From 1543 -- the publication of Copernicus's book, which book, by the way, was dedicated to the Pope and opened with a Letter to Cardinal Schoenberg in Rome saying, essentially, here's the book you asked about -- until 1616 the Church had said NOTHING officially about Copernicanism. I think it's fair to say that had Galileo not provoked an official response, the Church might well have remained silent. (Whether Galileo is heroic or injudicious is an interesting question.) I can quote you Bellarmine *in writing* (at exactly the same time, 16 years before the "trial") telling Galileo (and others) that IF he, Galileo, can produce a "demonstration" that the earth is moving, THEN he, Bellarmine, will be required to conclude that the Church has misinterpreted Scripture. Galileo has no such demonstration and offers none, then or later. He has a good case for *plausibility* but that isn't the issue. As of 1633, the Astronomy Dept. at the Collegio Romano (the Jesuit astronomers who brought us our Gregorian Calendar) have adopted Tycho Brahe's system largely because, in their view, the failure to observe any stellar parallax -- Galileo can't find any either with his telescope -- looks like a decisive falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. Tycho -- the best damn observer ever to date -- doesn't think the earth moves either. > "Of all hatreds, there is none greater than that of ignorance against > knowledge." -- Galileo Galilei, June 30, 1616 INCLUDING, most definitely, ignorance of the actual history of the sciences, knowledge of which does tend to diminish both "hatreds" and an unfounded certainty about matters which are uncertain. -- Stephen Straker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vancouver, B.C.
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
- Original Message - From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Social structure is not the same as hierarchy. >You are not anti-communist, you are anti-democratic, you are a >supremacist madman, who sees humanity with contempt, who sees >humanity as chattel to be herded who sees humanity with less dignity >than herd-animals, because herd animals do not choose their ways. I am a realist, someone who recognizes the overwhelmingly obvious fact that humanity is hierarchical -- that some people are better at some things than others. I would -- like all other people who are not insane -- go to a doctor for surgery. I suppose a true believer like yourself might opt for surgery from the grocer, but it doesn't make sense to me. Jay
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
- Original Message - From: Stephen Straker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Of course, any and all relations can LOOK hierarchical IF you are >prepared or intending to see them that way. The question is: are >they REALLY hierarchical, and THAT requires more than looking. Isn't it rather silly to expect me to prove what is demonstrated to you every day is true? Your personal incredulity is not a valid scientific argument. Why don't you point some society -- or some social primate -- that doesn't have hierarchy? It seems the burden to disprove our everyday experiences -- and the findings of the scientific community -- is on you. Jay
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
- Original Message - From: Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >We are not ** common heard animals with some >higher evolved race of scientists, Jay, wake up from >this irrational nightmare of yours. To deny human hierarchy, is to deny what is before your eyes everywhere. Hierarchy is part of every human society, from the shaman, to the Native American "Chief", to the football quarterback, to priests, to opera singers, to astronauts, to CEOs, to Joseph Stalin. Hierarchy is part of ALL primate societies -- from chimps, to baboons, to Americans. You must deny what is so utterly obvious because it is incompatible with your God of Communism. Your fruitless struggle to defend your God against science reminds one of Bellarmino defending his God against science: " wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the Earth moves around the Sun and that the Sun is stationary in the center of the world and does not move from east to west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held. In witness whereof we have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this twenty-sixth day of May, 1616." -- Robertro Cardinal Bellarmino "Of all hatreds, there is none greater than that of ignorance against knowledge." -- Galileo Galilei, June 30, 1616 Jay
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Guess what, science was also done by h u m a n s and at least as long ago as god. The human brain evolved to make patterns, to generalise, to abstract, to imagine, etc, as planning/picturing for the future proved to be an asset. When there was not enough data, god and superstition filled the gaps. When science, education and openness retreat, when there is uncertainty and insecurity, not to mention unexplicable-seeming poverty, god again returns in the guise of new-agism and fundamentalism to fill the reoccuring gaps of ignorance. In the US a large percent of scientists claim to be religious. Scientists are exactly like other humans, reflecting their physical and social environment, and given the right conditions, doing the human- defining act TOGETHER: changing both for the better, using the communication, cooperation and imagination that also evolved exactly for the execution of this very task. We are not ** common heard animals with some higher evolved race of scientists, Jay, wake up from this irrational nightmare of yours. Yes there are lots of horror instances when we behave like animals, when - by definition - wel o s e our humanity. It is not a normal state! And if you build a future environment that expect people to behave like animals - they will. I - and I hope most futureworkers - want a future fit for humans. And yes, we need a picture of this future for our mental well-being, that doesn't mean it is an illusion, it means a rational and practical plan to work towards a yes, ideal and optimal human existence (and most of us have a nonsurprisingly similar picture) - even when we know, that we can only do an approximation - but that is far more preferable than an insane, unplanned and inhuman present that leads nowhere.. Eva "... s mint rajta a rak, egy szorny-allam iszonyata rag." Jozsef, Attila >.. No matter what the issue -- from > democracy to nuclear power -- it works great when abstracted from the > real world. > > People evolved to believe in illusions -- not to discover real world: > > "The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of the supernatural > conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was > evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to [science] which was developed as a > product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms." > The Biological Basis of Morality, E.O. Wilson > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/bio2.htm > > The idea that the common herd animal can solve problems in complex > systems, is the biggest illusion of all. > > Jay -- www.dieoff.com > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Eva: I very much agree with what you've written. In any generation, knowledge can only extend so far. Beyond that there is uncertainty and speculation and, yes, the invention of gods. Religion is a way of organizing uncertainty, and it can vary from the loony to the profound. Keep up the good fight. Ed Weick Eva Durant: Guess what, science was also done by h u m a n s and at least as long ago as god. The human brain evolved to make patterns, to generalise, to abstract, to imagine, etc, as planning/picturing for the future proved to be an asset. When there was not enough data, god and superstition filled the gaps. When science, education and openness retreat, when there is uncertainty and insecurity, not to mention unexplicable-seeming poverty, god again returns in the guise of new-agism and fundamentalism to fill the reoccuring gaps of ignorance. In the US a large percent of scientists claim to be religious. Scientists are exactly like other humans, reflecting their physical and social environment, and given the right conditions, doing the human- defining act TOGETHER: changing both for the better, using the communication, cooperation and imagination that also evolved exactly for the execution of this very task. We are not ** common heard animals with some higher evolved race of scientists, Jay, wake up from this irrational nightmare of yours. Yes there are lots of horror instances when we behave like animals, when - by definition - wel o s e our humanity. It is not a normal state! And if you build a future environment that expect people to behave like animals - they will. I - and I hope most futureworkers - want a future fit for humans. And yes, we need a picture of this future for our mental well-being, that doesn't mean it is an illusion, it means a rational and practical plan to work towards a yes, ideal and optimal human existence (and most of us have a nonsurprisingly similar picture) - even when we know, that we can only do an approximation - but that is far more preferable than an insane, unplanned and inhuman present that leads nowhere.. Eva "... s mint rajta a rak, egy szorny-allam iszonyata rag." Jozsef, Attila >.. No matter what the issue -- from > democracy to nuclear power -- it works great when abstracted from the > real world. > > People evolved to believe in illusions -- not to discover real world: > > "The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of the supernatural > conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was > evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to [science] which was developed as a > product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms." > The Biological Basis of Morality, E.O. Wilson > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/bio2.htm > > The idea that the common herd animal can solve problems in complex > systems, is the biggest illusion of all. > > Jay -- www.dieoff.com > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
> > Eva, > > Thanks for all of the work. You were very articulate and I enjoyed the read. If >your > premise is correct then the rest of that post is unnecessary. There are those in >every > movement who state that the original premise has been betrayed.I think the Free > Marketeers would say the same about their ideas. They certainly would argue with >you about > genuine Capitalism ever being tried in the world. > Complementing me won't hide the fact that you did not bother to read my my post, as you are not responding to the points I made; I had given reasons for my arguments, I hadn't just re-stated them like you do here. (patiently and optimistically:) The original premise has not been betrayed, well demonstrated conditions created a well demonstrated pattern. Different conditions would have made a different outcome. Every theory have to be defined over a given and limited domain to work; Marx was good enough to define it for us, but if he didn't we would had to do the work of making it more universal. Just like relativity being more inclusive than newtons laws, not negating but making it more understandable as a special case of a more general framework. I haven't seen a systematic analysis of capitalism by free-marketeers or by capitalists as a development from past systems and as a pointer to a next phase. Free markets lead to child-labour etc, super-exploitation of humans and the environment, I yet to see an analysis why it didn't work in the pre-welfare past. Also, the free-marketists usually embrace social Darwinism that is ready to dispence with the "loser" majority of human kind which is totally against the trend of human development so far. > I am aware of the specifics of what you were speaking but it was not the subject of >my > questions. I would contend that the teacher (apart from a school which is a kind of > "education of scale") IS responsible for the success of their product. They are also > responsible for the failure. If they do not wish to be known as such, then they >should not > accept the job of teaching that particular student. Or should forgo writing the >book.I > certainly do hold the founders of the various schools of religious, political and >economic > thought responsible for the chaos expressed in their names. I contend that without >the > original seed, the genetics stop there.Responsibility is, in my culture, one of >the > primal ideas. That is why we burn anything that has not been sold or given away by >the > dead. > If the student is hungry and hasn't got the book which even if he had he cannot read, would you still blame the author of the book for any outcome? Uptil now history just happened TO people, so you cannot blame them - any of them - for it, it was like an outside, wild law of nature. Only now we have first time the option to act responsibly with both the information and the economic/technological conditions satisfactory for actively form our future. > If you wish to go the route of Marx as founding the idea that "economics is the >bottom of > all human life and interactions" then I would have another, actually harsher set of > questions since I consider it a statement not grounded in all of the facts of human > civilization. In short, it is 19th century "romantic idealized thought." Thought >from a > time that had no idea of the foolishness implications inherent in their arguments. >As I > pointed out with the Hammerklavier fugue, even in the system of 18th and 19th century > harmonic theory, there is the issue of time. When the system has been achieved it is > replaced by another with different rules. In the 19th century they believed in A >system, A > morality, A religion, A universal theory of economics (their own), A Universal Art >based > upon European principles. > Economics is the base of society, the efficiency and distribution of the human necessities make the rest go round - surely this is somewhat evident. In what way can you see marxism to be linked to morality and religion of the 19 hundreds? It has a totally different look at the family, art and culture than his contemporaries - the problem is, he's even too new for you... > The absurdity of this should be apparent to anyone who has studied the various >languages of > the world.But from Johnson's Dictionary up through Marx's era it was the common >belief > that Latin grammar was the basis of all advanced languages. This lasted until >modern > psycho-linguists had to admit that it didn't fit English all that well either. >Like the > Sioux skull to the Phrenologists. > I don't know if Marx signed up for this idea, he happened to have opinions on most sciences he was aware of, but even if he did a bit of liguistics, I can't see the significance. Galileo was wrong about heliocentriity because his contemporaries had a few wierd beliefs? If someone managed to nail a piece of reality, it just doesn't
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
- Original Message - From: Ray E. Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Thanks for all of the work. You were very articulate and I enjoyed the >read. If your premise is correct then the rest of that post is >unnecessary. There are those in every movement who state that the >original premise has been betrayed.I think the Free Marketeers >would say the same about their ideas. They certainly would >argue with you about genuine Capitalism ever being tried in the world. You hit the nail on the head Ray! No matter what the issue -- from democracy to nuclear power -- it works great when abstracted from the real world. People evolved to believe in illusions -- not to discover real world: "The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to [science] which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms." The Biological Basis of Morality, E.O. Wilson http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/bio2.htm The idea that the common herd animal can solve problems in complex systems, is the biggest illusion of all. Jay -- www.dieoff.com
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
REH > Never having lived in Marxist Communism I am sure that is true however: > Here we go again... Ray, nobody yet lived in Marxist Communism, what's more, not one of the pseudo-socialist countries/ex-leaders claimed that their countries were Marxist Communist. Not even Castro or Baby Kim. > 1. Do you mean to say the Marxism is not Messianic and claims to be scientific? > No, Marxism does not accept the existence of any Absolute Truth, so it cannot be Messianic. > 2. Or are you saying that Marx himself was not Messianic in his claims? > no, he did not claim any such role. Which claims are such in your opinion? > 3. Or that he did not set out to write a book that was as timeless as the Bible >claims > to be and ended up being as time and culture bound as it is? > His book is timeless as any can be that manages to show a pattern that was not discovered before, as, for example, Mendeleyev's Periodical Table. Both have gaps that were not possible to fill from their contemporary data, however, the pattern still works beautifully and helped in the findings of further discoveries. > 4. Or if "scientific" is its claim; then are you claiming that its "scientific" data > about the nature, (& potential) of life and systems is NOT archaic and grounded in > philosophical belief rather than hard science? (I would ask the same question of > Hayek.) > Philosophical belief should rely upon scientific observation of the universe rather than speculation or pure imagination. I agree (if this is what you are saying, it is a bit difficult to decipher) and this has been done; both dialectics and materialism are based on thousands of years of such experiencing of the natural and the human universe. > 5. Or are you saying the Phrenology with it's corollary "science" of body type > "ectomorph, endomorph, etc." was not a legitimate area of scientific inquiry as well > as being racist in origin? And that social/economic theory failures like Marxism >are > not the same as social/physical theory failures like Phrenology and Body types? Did > not both meet the world of practical reality and civilized living and crash on the > shoals of both? > ?? Phrenology was bad science, it attempted to link intelligence with head shape or whatever, and there is no such link. Marxism couldn't fail yet, as it was not tried. Marxism is DEMOCRATIC socialism, that has no reason why should not exist when the economic and social conditions are ripe. Marx descibed capitalism and its contradictions well enough to be quoted in the top economics broadsheets. So his analysis as to a society that could be overcoming these fatal shortcomings has somewhat more credence than phrenology. Just as phrenology per se did not cause racism and fascism, Marxist theories did not cause the catastrophies of Stalinism. > 6. Did not Marx crash on the shoals of family, spirituality, human nature, poor > delivery systems, and the inability to deal with Western culture's predatory nature? > (I'm not speaking of the failures often attributed to Marxism that Capitalism and the > Aristocratic systems share. i.e. poor weather or stupidity about the environment.) > Marxism is a theory of analysis. It says, that when the economic base is strong enough, when there is a literate working class with ideas about a consciously and collectively built future and a reasonable experience and expectations of democracy, than the practice of chaotic markets and private appropration will be thrown out (if they don't implode spontaineously) as they cannot solve the problems of global survival. What is it to do with the crumbling institution of family, a fuzzy notions of spirituality and human nature or Western culture? > 7. Do you mean to say that Marx, unlike the Puritans, was not opportunistic and > grandiose? > No, I cannot see where and when was Marx opportunistic and grandiose, and why should he compete with the puritans. > 8. Do you mean to say that Marx is consonant with the most contemporary social >science > and that the failure of the Communist countries was not based upon problems with an > unworkable Romantic 19th century fantasy? > Yes, see above. > 9. Do you mean to say that Marxist economic application did NOT fail in the > competition of its own market? (As the Warsaw Pact was a market of its own.) > What are you on about?? The Warsaw pact tried to play the capitalist market game without capitalist economic relations, a good illustration that the social-economical conditions were far from the Marxist definitions. However this was a minor point, the failure was due to the total absence of democracy and openess, which made planning a totally pointless, burocratic exercise. The total absence of democracy occured, due to the revolutionary situation arriving first to a semi-feudal country after a devastating war. An allied attack on the new country by the capitalist west supporting the whites against the then prevailing
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Durant wrote: > REH > > > Never having lived in Marxist Communism I am sure that is true however: > > > > Here we go again... Ray, nobody yet lived in Marxist Communism, > what's more, not one of the pseudo-socialist countries/ex-leaders claimed > that their countries were Marxist Communist. Not even Castro > or Baby Kim. (snip) Eva, Thanks for all of the work. You were very articulate and I enjoyed the read. If your premise is correct then the rest of that post is unnecessary. There are those in every movement who state that the original premise has been betrayed.I think the Free Marketeers would say the same about their ideas. They certainly would argue with you about genuine Capitalism ever being tried in the world. I am aware of the specifics of what you were speaking but it was not the subject of my questions. I would contend that the teacher (apart from a school which is a kind of "education of scale") IS responsible for the success of their product. They are also responsible for the failure. If they do not wish to be known as such, then they should not accept the job of teaching that particular student. Or should forgo writing the book. I certainly do hold the founders of the various schools of religious, political and economic thought responsible for the chaos expressed in their names. I contend that without the original seed, the genetics stop there.Responsibility is, in my culture, one of the primal ideas. That is why we burn anything that has not been sold or given away by the dead. If you wish to go the route of Marx as founding the idea that "economics is the bottom of all human life and interactions" then I would have another, actually harsher set of questions since I consider it a statement not grounded in all of the facts of human civilization. In short, it is 19th century "romantic idealized thought." Thought from a time that had no idea of the foolishness implications inherent in their arguments. As I pointed out with the Hammerklavier fugue, even in the system of 18th and 19th century harmonic theory, there is the issue of time. When the system has been achieved it is replaced by another with different rules. In the 19th century they believed in A system, A morality, A religion, A universal theory of economics (their own), A Universal Art based upon European principles. The absurdity of this should be apparent to anyone who has studied the various languages of the world.But from Johnson's Dictionary up through Marx's era it was the common belief that Latin grammar was the basis of all advanced languages. This lasted until modern psycho-linguists had to admit that it didn't fit English all that well either.Like the Sioux skull to the Phrenologists. But you can't keep claiming that the theory is OK when it keeps coming up with failed applications based upon excuses. I find idealism a useful tool but only a tool. It has to be balanced with truthfulness. What do you know? Truth and Beauty.Why don't we try that for awhile? When you think about truthful practice plus an evolving, humane, respectful idealism, most civilizations work. I would suggest, as I have to libertarian members of this list and others, that the best way to prove your point is to form a community of like minded people willing to work within the discipline of your principles. Show with your intelligence, humanity, culture and prosperity the value of your principles and their implications. Otherwise I would place all of these writings that we have discussed along with the "Republic" and Frank Lloyd Wright's "Usonia" as fantasy writing. Although they have been tried, adjusting them to the real human condition has been a failure. Even the beautiful houses of Frank Lloyd Wright became a dull landscape in Usonia.Personally I would prefer New York's urban clutter to any of the ugly inhumanity that I have seen in Greenbelt or Columbia Maryland or in the attempts to create the worker's paradise. Year's ago I read the Bible and worked in Churches for awhile (13 years) building artistic music programs.After a while I had to admit that the book was being betrayed by the people. Were the people wrong? No, I found later in Synagogues, the context for the book and the people that it came from. That taught me that religion, like art, is time/space specific. It springs from a context and meets the needs of a group. Often the context changes within a few years and the book, although filled with beauty and wisdom, is no longer applicable to the new situation. My people were both Democratic and Communitarian. They succeeded because they were family, but the outside world tore them apart. Life tore us apart.I've heard the same said about Bologna. Italy is beautiful and Bologna is unique.But the Libertarian can always find someone in Little Italy in New York who escaped the "terrible lack of freedom" in Bologna while others a
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Eva Durant wrote: > REH (snip) > > If this is what you think, you did not understand what > marxism is all about. > Never having lived in Marxist Communism I am sure that is true however: 1. Do you mean to say the Marxism is not Messianic and claims to be scientific? 2. Or are you saying that Marx himself was not Messianic in his claims? 3. Or that he did not set out to write a book that was as timeless as the Bible claims to be and ended up being as time and culture bound as it is? 4. Or if "scientific" is its claim; then are you claiming that its "scientific" data about the nature, (& potential) of life and systems is NOT archaic and grounded in philosophical belief rather than hard science? (I would ask the same question of Hayek.) 5. Or are you saying the Phrenology with it's corollary "science" of body type "ectomorph, endomorph, etc." was not a legitimate area of scientific inquiry as well as being racist in origin? And that social/economic theory failures like Marxism are not the same as social/physical theory failures like Phrenology and Body types? Did not both meet the world of practical reality and civilized living and crash on the shoals of both? 6. Did not Marx crash on the shoals of family, spirituality, human nature, poor delivery systems, and the inability to deal with Western culture's predatory nature? (I'm not speaking of the failures often attributed to Marxism that Capitalism and the Aristocratic systems share. i.e. poor weather or stupidity about the environment.) 7. Do you mean to say that Marx, unlike the Puritans, was not opportunistic and grandiose? 8. Do you mean to say that Marx is consonant with the most contemporary social science and that the failure of the Communist countries was not based upon problems with an unworkable Romantic 19th century fantasy? 9. Do you mean to say that Marxist economic application did NOT fail in the competition of its own market? (As the Warsaw Pact was a market of its own.) 10. Did the Soviet bloc not have ample resources to prove (or disprove), within itself, Marx's theories? Eva, in my business, if the student fails then the teacher is blamed. We are rather blunt about it. We also are not afraid of failure as it is a part of the growth of life. What we do not believe is the ultimate perfection of life and the end of time. We believe in cycles of birth, growth, maturity, old age and finish or rebirth depending upon the mental and physical resources. We are taught that there is no ultimate perfection except in death. It is the belief, in "ultimate perfection, and the end of time, that excludes death as the outcome," that is the hubris delusion of most of Western thought.Those Westerners should learn from their artists. Consider that Beethoven "perfected" the fugue in the Hammerklavier Sonata and there hasn't been a decent artistic fugue written since. He answered all of the questions and made the Artistic composition of another fugue a redundancy, which we call "derivative" in the arts. In effect, perfection kills the form. This is not far from the metaphor of the death of the Father necessary for the adulthood of the child also found in what William Bennet (the Republican moralist) calls "Judeo-Christian" tradition. So what do I not understand? I'm happy to learn but remember I too have a time constraint. > REH: > > That is the reason that I do my own work and am my own boss.I miss the > > "safety" and am considered irresponsible by some for not having more of an > > inheritance for my offspring, but it seems you can't have both in this > > society. Sometimes it's better just to stay out of the way of those "economies > > of scale." > > > EVA: > not an available option for 99% of the people. Glad to see you speak for them. Anyone can do it if they are willing to. Maybe you have to understand and accept the truth of the Potlatch. "Only the person who can give it away or do without it can truly own it." The American and Canadian governments were so threatened by this that they banned the public expression of our beliefs until 1978. They did the same thing to us that Marxism did to Russian Christians and Jews, they tried to control and own it.We always said that Marxist Communism and Free Market Capitalism were really two sides of the same coin and that without one the other would absorb the worst of both.The U.S. Senators have been practicing Newspeak in the best tradition of the Communist renaming. Just hit the government web and read the names of the bills that they are proposing.Sounds like a bad translation of the Politburo. REH
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Jan Matthieu wrote: > Even more boredom, despair and drugs... So they will have to be educated to > handle not having to work ? Putting it more positively, they will have to be educated to make creative (or at least 'satisfying') use of their time. > Hm, maybe, most probably the people who worked > with you didn't really do that completely out of 'free will'. The participation in a programme at all wasn't completely out of 'free will', that's correct. However, there was enough freedom on _what_ to work. Everyone of these long-term unemployed could choose in which of the programmes s/he would participate in. I designed my programme to be the physically easiest and mentally most interesting one of them. Unfortunately it seems that most participants chose my programme for the former attribute, not for the latter. My disappointment was so see that they weren't interested in the offered opportunities, and abused rather than used given freedoms. (BTW, the authorities didn't like that I gave them most freedoms. But it was an interesting experiment IMO.) > In any case, > from your description, they were already bored... so why bother, how much > more bored can you get? Your question sounds negative again. The favourite saying of a social worker who advised all the programmes was: "You can always say 'the glass is half full' or 'the glass is half empty'." Why don't you ask: "how much LESS bored can you get ?" ? (Actually getting them LESS bored is one of the main purposes of these programmes..) > There will always be people who will not be able > to handle the freedom of not having to toil any longer (as if this would be > the 'natural' condition of man, it isn't), just like there are and probably > always will be those who don't know how to handle drugs (but is that a > reason to outlaw them, so that still others, much worse, can reap enormous > profits?). Sure, there will always be such people. But perhaps with good education we can reduce the number of unfortunate ones ? (Yes Ray, the Arts can surely be of assistance here!) Maybe the two groups you describe above happen to be interrelated (if not largely identical) ? > And so what if it would take efforts. Are you for or against the idea, > that's what I would like to know. My point was that we should take these efforts _before_ introducing BI, otherwise the disadvantages of BI will outweigh the advantages. > You don't sound like it. But then you will have to come with better > arguments against it, Chris. You got me wrong, Jan (like on other occasions). --Chris
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
...
>
> No, I don't think that 19th century Socialism and Communism with its base in out
> of date "scientific" theories is any better. These may as well base their
> theories on Phrenology for all of the sense they make. They were all trying to
> find their individuality by killing their Fathers. ("I'm sure I can write a
> better Bible than that!)
>
...
If this is what you think, you did not understand what
marxism is all about.
>
> That is the reason that I do my own work and am my own boss.I miss the
> "safety" and am considered irresponsible by some for not having more of an
> inheritance for my offspring, but it seems you can't have both in this
> society. Sometimes it's better just to stay out of the way of those "economies
> of scale."
>
not an available option for 99% of the people.
Eva
> REH
>
>
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
-- > Van: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: S. Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Onderwerp: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery' > Datum: maandag 8 februari 1999 20:26 > > Yeah, we creative types really dream of the end of 'wage slavery' ! > I could spend years and years only with creative hobbies, NGO volunteering > and the Net, but alas, the 'job' work gets in the way most of the time. > However, in a part of the NGO work I got to know a different kind of > persons: When I created a social programme for unemployed people, I naively > thought they could be put to a (low-level, low-intensity) task and simply do > the work all day, or even find own ideas to work something useful. Wrong. > 90% of them did nothing (except reading the newspaper, chatting/arguing, > and other nonsense), unless someone advised them "every move" all the time. > I offered them a variety of opportunities, even a computer system to work > with, and individual courses on it. But they ended up with playing computer > games. They didn't ask me for new projects, but for new games after they > got bored of the old ones. You may say: "See, you're not a social worker..". > But the 'managers' of other similar programmes confirmed the attitude of > the participants. Note: The official purpose of those programmes is to > give the unemployed a structure to increase their chances to get back into > the working mill err process. > > Now, I don't put the blame on those individuals. Rather, I think it was > "the system" that made them like that. Actually, at least in 'lower' > positions, corporations don't seem to want employees with "own brains", but > they want "wage slaves". It will take huge educational and psycho-social > efforts to prepare these people for the Basic Income society, or they will > end up in even more boredom, despair and drugs. > > Greetings, > Chris > Even more boredom, despair and drugs... So they will have to be educated to handle not having to work ? Hm, maybe, most probably the people who worked with you didn't really do that completely out of 'free will'. In any case, from your description, they were already bored... so why bother, how much more bored can you get?. There will always be people who will not be able to handle the freedom of not having to toil any longer (as if this would be the 'natural' condition of man, it isn't), just like there are and probably always will be those who don't know how to handle drugs (but is that a reason to outlaw them, so that still others, much worse, can reap enormous profits?). And so what if it would take efforts. Are you for or against the idea, that's what I would like to know. You don't sound like it. But then you will have to come with better arguments against it, Chris. Regards, Jan Matthieu Flemish Greens
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
I think the problem is the "we" and "them" situation, and I'm afraid you were perceived as "them". Why should they do something boring, when they could play? The low level computer skills that are on offer on these courses are not getting you a job. (I've been there, done it, got the tshirt...) Why should they attempt to get a crappy job that hardly pays more than the assistance? Why should they take all the lecturing and the usual smug contempt of "helpers" with any other attitude? For decent jobs with decent wage there are too many applicants, and if you were out of work or never worked your chance is zilch. You never heard anything else in school, but that you are stupid and the experience was humiliating and boring. Why would they volunteer for what they think is more of the same? If there was a basic income type of thing and free choice of free education with interested, not overworked and harrassed teachers, the confidence would come back with the change from exclusion to inclusion. Eva > Yeah, we creative types really dream of the end of 'wage slavery' ! > I could spend years and years only with creative hobbies, NGO volunteering > and the Net, but alas, the 'job' work gets in the way most of the time. > However, in a part of the NGO work I got to know a different kind of > persons: When I created a social programme for unemployed people, I naively > thought they could be put to a (low-level, low-intensity) task and simply do > the work all day, or even find own ideas to work something useful. Wrong. > 90% of them did nothing (except reading the newspaper, chatting/arguing, > and other nonsense), unless someone advised them "every move" all the time. > I offered them a variety of opportunities, even a computer system to work > with, and individual courses on it. But they ended up with playing computer > games. They didn't ask me for new projects, but for new games after they > got bored of the old ones. You may say: "See, you're not a social worker..". > But the 'managers' of other similar programmes confirmed the attitude of > the participants. Note: The official purpose of those programmes is to > give the unemployed a structure to increase their chances to get back into > the working mill err process. > > Now, I don't put the blame on those individuals. Rather, I think it was > "the system" that made them like that. Actually, at least in 'lower' > positions, corporations don't seem to want employees with "own brains", but > they want "wage slaves". It will take huge educational and psycho-social > efforts to prepare these people for the Basic Income society, or they will > end up in even more boredom, despair and drugs. > > Greetings, > Chris > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Sally Lerner wrote: > Ray - You've just summarized what I'm working on, which is how to > re-arrange society, via a Basic Income, so that when 'jobs' fade away, the > transition to what James Robertson calls 'ownwork' can be as painless as > possible. To me, the end of 'wage slavery' is a cause for > celebration--there will always be good work (arts and other) to do and most > jobs just get in the way. The Baptists probably sold the model of human > beings that holds us to be inately lazy and evil, only whipped into shape > by fear of god and coercion by our betters. I never bought. Yeah, we creative types really dream of the end of 'wage slavery' ! I could spend years and years only with creative hobbies, NGO volunteering and the Net, but alas, the 'job' work gets in the way most of the time. However, in a part of the NGO work I got to know a different kind of persons: When I created a social programme for unemployed people, I naively thought they could be put to a (low-level, low-intensity) task and simply do the work all day, or even find own ideas to work something useful. Wrong. 90% of them did nothing (except reading the newspaper, chatting/arguing, and other nonsense), unless someone advised them "every move" all the time. I offered them a variety of opportunities, even a computer system to work with, and individual courses on it. But they ended up with playing computer games. They didn't ask me for new projects, but for new games after they got bored of the old ones. You may say: "See, you're not a social worker..". But the 'managers' of other similar programmes confirmed the attitude of the participants. Note: The official purpose of those programmes is to give the unemployed a structure to increase their chances to get back into the working mill err process. Now, I don't put the blame on those individuals. Rather, I think it was "the system" that made them like that. Actually, at least in 'lower' positions, corporations don't seem to want employees with "own brains", but they want "wage slaves". It will take huge educational and psycho-social efforts to prepare these people for the Basic Income society, or they will end up in even more boredom, despair and drugs. Greetings, Chris
Re: an empirical observation Re: the end of 'wage slavery'
Christoph Reuss wrote:
> Yeah, we creative types really dream of the end of 'wage slavery' !
> I could spend years and years only with creative hobbies, NGO volunteering
> and the Net, but alas, the 'job' work gets in the way most of the time.
> However, in a part of the NGO work I got to know a different kind of
> persons: When I created a social programme for unemployed people, I naively
> thought they could be put to a (low-level, low-intensity) task and simply do
> the work all day, or even find own ideas to work something useful. Wrong.
> 90% of them did nothing (except reading the newspaper, chatting/arguing,
> and other nonsense), unless someone advised them "every move" all the time.
> I offered them a variety of opportunities, even a computer system to work
> with, and individual courses on it. But they ended up with playing computer
> games. They didn't ask me for new projects, but for new games after they
> got bored of the old ones. You may say: "See, you're not a social worker..".
> But the 'managers' of other similar programmes confirmed the attitude of
> the participants. Note: The official purpose of those programmes is to
> give the unemployed a structure to increase their chances to get back into
> the working mill err process.
>
> Now, I don't put the blame on those individuals. Rather, I think it was
> "the system" that made them like that. Actually, at least in 'lower'
> positions, corporations don't seem to want employees with "own brains", but
> they want "wage slaves". It will take huge educational and psycho-social
> efforts to prepare these people for the Basic Income society, or they will
> end up in even more boredom, despair and drugs.
Chris,
I spent an entire year shooting pool and watching the TV in the Army because they
had lost my papers. Had I pointed this out I might have been dead in Vietnam.
But I didn't "do drugs" and wasn't bored, (I read a lot.) I also read that
both Veblen and Keynes wrote their first masterpieces when they were "loafing"
(Heilbroner's word, not mine) on the job.
I have experienced on all levels the hostility of those above to people
"improvising" with their jobs at lower levels. They only want to know that you
are there when they ask. Sort of like Butlers. (the Blue Team)
That is one of the reasons that I find Capitalism and the Market to be so
incredibly poor at efficiency with too much redundancy. On the other hand when
the Master Capitalists took over in the Gingrich Revolution they cut their staffs
to the bone and then couldn't deal with the business of the offices.
No, I don't think that 19th century Socialism and Communism with its base in out
of date "scientific" theories is any better. These may as well base their
theories on Phrenology for all of the sense they make. They were all trying to
find their individuality by killing their Fathers. ("I'm sure I can write a
better Bible than that!)
Remember, what "did the Phrenologists in" was not science but racism. They found
the Lakota had the most ideal, large skulls, bigger and better brains, and their
theories never recovered. Of course along the way they operated a huge trade in
human skeletons ($600 per, they said the stench of boiling human flesh around the
Army posts was unbelievable,) that made the Lakota more valuable dead than alive.
That is the reason that I do my own work and am my own boss.I miss the
"safety" and am considered irresponsible by some for not having more of an
inheritance for my offspring, but it seems you can't have both in this
society. Sometimes it's better just to stay out of the way of those "economies
of scale."
REH
