Quite a refreshing change.
Eisensteins stuff on the internet is well worth a look.
Especially the stuff to be found at the Reality Sandwich website.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/homepage_sacred_economics

Reality Sandwich also offers a refreshing change to the dismal realism that limits most of the chatter to be found in the conventional "news"-papers, magazines, and on the internet extensions of the world-view promoted by them. And of course the "free" market right-wing think (stink) tanks.

This author also advocates a similar kind of paradigm shift.
http://www.hazelhenderson.com/the-love-economy

I only got as far as "most of the time, the loudest noises we hear will be the sounds of nature and the laughter of children", & knew I was reading the musings of a kook.

Hearing only the sounds of nature is fine for a few minutes. Too much of it is bad for the soul. When I found myself forced into that position, I spent considerable time & effort improving the reception of my radio, so I could receive something, at least for a while morning & night. Even the live cattle sales report coming out of I believe Townsville, on our ABC topped nature, after enough time deprived of all else.

Then the laughter of children, wow! Ask my mate about that. He's the one forced to sell his house to get away from it, when a school playground extension brought it hard against his side fence.

Children, particularly in mass, don't laugh. No, they scream, screech, yell, shout, & generate other dreadful noises, but laughter is not one of them.

Any one suggesting one should want to listen to them, other than perhaps your own if you are a masochists, is obviously a few quite a few cents short of the dollar, so I read no further

Sounds like the basis of a great fantasy novel.

I rather enjoy these existential musings.

Nothing can ever equal the flower-power sixties for fruitloopery, though. Been there, done that.

I think I even still have the t-shirt.

"1. Negative-interest currency
...Bank deposits will pay zero or negative interest rates, encouraging the flow of money and its productive use."

This has been the status quo in Japan for decades now, with interest rates lower than price inflation. Hasn't exactly had the effect the author describes, has it.

"2. Elimination of economic rents
...measures that will gradually return the profits accruing from the mere ownership of something (e.g. a patent, copyright or mineral leases) back to 'the people'"

Wonderful. A comprehensive disincentive to invent anything new at all, or start a business, or write a book, or compose music. Ever.

Sharin' all the world, man. Cool.

"3. Internalisation of social and environmental costs
...the creation of currencies which 'are backed with Earth's resources and its capacity to absorb and transform waste'"

Fairly easy to do with potatoes. Not so easy with iron ore. Or water.

"4. Economic and monetary localisation
...regions issuing (or reclaiming) their own currencies, will become more common."

We need more currencies in this world like we need a hole in the head. If you disbelieve this, watch the chaos that will be created when the Euro collapses, and countries have to re-start their own. It will not be pretty - and they all have the advantage of a pre-existing benchmark.

"5. Social dividend
...to provide a universal payment to every person in order to guarantee the minimum necessities of life."

Just what we need. Another outright disincentive to do anything except sit on our collective butts, while others support us. Has the author any recollection of communism? The failed reality of it, that is, not the dream.

"6. Economic degrowth"

That would be a natural outcome of the previous activities. No need to plan for that.

"7. Gift culture and P2P economics"

Barter. The perfect foundation for exchange of value in a primitive economy.

Bottom line: back to the caves, everyone. Your leaves and berries await.

Surprise, surprise, an 'arts major' who still hasn't realised that the only paper that is worthy of his mutterings comes on a roll. Economies are just a collection of markets. And markets are structured to suit themselves. If you are not a seller, and you cannot afford the going price, then you are not in the market at all, and you have no say on it's structure.

'How we actually get from here to there is the chapter yet to be written,..'

Rubbish it has already been written tried and failed.

Try Marx and Engels, then the National Socialist Hitler and International Socialist Stalin.

The answer lies not in the exclusivity of the economics of wealth and the giving away of that created wealth, in any shape or form. We've tried that. It doesn't work. That is all Charle Eisenstein is proposing. Your conclusion states as much.

Any solution to today's malaise lies in curbing all debt so interest rates naturally fall as they have in the US, and at the same time it lies in encouraging and developing peoples individual ability to strive for and achieve their own ambitions, which is something we've abandoned recently in favour of nannyism. Particularly in the US and Europe ... and we are trying damned hard to do the same in Australia.

It is that simple.

Thanks for the review, Nick Rose. I haven't read the book so can't say much, though you seem either to have maintained a high degree of tolerance, or the book is better than it sounds. Futurologists annoy me as a) the future is never that easy to predict, and b) if you get it wrong it doesn't matter.
I like your Marxist point at the end, that revolution is never going to take place spontaneously, and that power has to be wrested from capitalists. But I can't help thinking life's just too short for such self-sacrifice, and humanity en masse is hardened, by nature, against hardship. Tyranny has always enjoyed an easy road and will continue to do so under the current dispensation.
On the other hand I agree that the most stable inequities are never far from exploding.
Altogether the author seems too optimistic and it seems to me we're living in the end times for the vast majority.
Change will be primarily a geological force, rather than a social one.
I would like to have seen more on the issue of entropy, which I've tried to canvass myself in these generally conservative and minimifidianist pages. So you're pissing in the wind of course.

The single problem that is blindingly obvious to those with even rudimentary knowledge of history and economics is that the "utopia" proposed by Eisentein and Nick Rose is utopia only to a select few.

Similar Utopias were envisioned by the likes of Marx, but the numbers of people dissatisfied with the uniformity trying to break out rapidly threatened to bring these societies down. The only way to maintain them was to instituionalise a level of brutality that is unimaginable today.

The premise of the article, i.e. that economies should be shaped to suit man is correct, unfortunately for the author, we are probably already there.

I see from most of the comments thus far that capitalist indoctrination still has most folks firmly in its claws and ideas of how we might create a better world, a more peaceful, community-oriented world are vigorously attacked and dismissed.

Again it proves that most people are not educated. Most people can't think or question. They love the same old, same old and see ideas-people as threats to their rigid little world views or perhaps their share portfolios or religious superstitions.

Thanks Nick for providing this review. Many of the ideas put forward have similarity to my own view of this ugly, chaotic, divided world and what needs to be done to improve it.

Making greed a crime would be a good start on the road to peace and unity. Taking all assets from the rich and redistributing them would be another step forward as would disbanding all corporations.

And if honesty, compassion and generosity again became values that people embraced, we might be able to save our world from the coming nuclear holocaust.

David G

"Again it proves that most people are not educated." I assume that everyone that does not agree with you is ignorant. Certainly it appears that this applies to you.

What qualifies you to make such sweeping statements?

I don't debate with shadows, Shadow Minister, or those who engage in childish insults!

DG,

So you are happy to dish it out, but turn tail and run when someone challenges your implication that a failure to embrace such tripe is a sign of poor education.

You then follow this up with pompous motherhood statements such as "making greed a crime would be a good start"

What was Marxism trying to do and where did it get them?

Why do the ideas in Eisenstein's book (tripe according to you - what are your qualifications to make such a statement?) upset you so much, Shadow Minister?

Why does my general endorsement of those ideas cause you such angst?

Can't you handle having your world-view questioned?

Do you know everything?

Do you want everyone to think exactly like you?

Cheers.

DG,
These outdated ideas, rebadged and regurgitated by Eisenstein and Rose, irritate rather than upset me, as they have no basis in reality. I don’t know of a single example of a stable society engendering these values, yet have an abundance of examples where these descended into tyranny. It is like discussing who would win between batman and superman, debate could be furious, but never more than fantasy.

As for my qualifications, I have degrees in engineering, economics and statistics, and an MBA.

I don't know everything, but enough to KNOW that statements like “GDP growth … it is no longer possible, according to the laws of thermodynamics” is technobabble, (as thermodynamics has no bearing on GDP growth.) Etc Etc.

As for your other comments:

Your assertion that those that don't agree with you are uneducated causes annoyance, your endorsement of these ideas engenders pity.

I do enjoy having my world view challenged, as has occurred many times. Robust ideas supported by facts and logic have forced me to confront my values frequently. This cobbled together wishlist, devoid of logic and fact is unlikely to do so.

I don't want everyone to think like me, just to think.

Shadow Minister, my major training was in psychology.

The words you have written thus far show clearly that you are not an abstract thinker, not a spiritual person, not a student of philosophy, but you are an enthusiastic disciple of the current economic system which unfairly advantages the greedy and eschews equality.

When a book of ideas comes along you compulsively ridicule it, trash it because it challenges your stereotypical mindset, your many narrow preconceptions.

But don't worry. You're not alone. Most Australians are like you!

David G,

Bravo!!

Oh god. Now we have the mystics, & the fairies from the bottom of the garden getting together.

Even worse, they thing they are talking sense.

DG,

The words you have written thus far show clearly that you are not a logical thinker, not a rational person, not a seeker of truth through reality, but you are an enthusiastic disciple of current fads which like so many before, promises fairness, equality, and lifelong happiness.

When a book of fantasy comes along you compulsively embrace it believe it, and espouse it because it challenges your unpleasant reality, and allows you to cast off the shackles of reason.

But don't worry. You're not alone. Most Greens are like you!

There is one word that you employed here that makes this discussion completely impossible to develop on any sensible level, David G.

>>...the current economic system which unfairly advantages the greedy and eschews equality<<

Equality.

Equality of what, pray tell? Once we are agreed on that, we might be able to determine in what manner the system "eschews" it. But until you can explain - even in the vaguest, most general of terms - what you mean by equality in this sentence, it is nothing more than a vapid slogan.

If you believe that our economic system should be designed so that we are all "equal" financially, you might like to consider some of the social ramifications of that policy. Not to mention the political issues - such an environment could only be created through a command-and-control system, which would by definition create an "us-and-them" difference between the rulers and the ruled. You are unlikely to find a population anywhere in the world that would voluntarily give up their right to self-improvement.

If you do have something to offer that goes beyond the protest-placard level, I for one would be interested to hear it.

>>When a book of ideas comes along you compulsively ridicule it, trash it because it challenges your stereotypical mindset, your many narrow preconceptions<<

It is not my "stereotypical mindset" that is challenged here. But I do feel that my intelligence is being insulted by such a farrago of new-earthian twaddle. Maybe you find such prelapsarian longings acceptable. I for one find them socially corrosive.

Here's a suggestion which might help, David G...

Since your comment that

"And if honesty, compassion and generosity again became values that people embraced,..."

implies - by saying *again* - you know something about human history which isn't apparent to the rest of us, perhaps you could tell us where and when this nirvana existed - and maybe what happened to the people concerned?

Couldn't hurt the discussion.

Pericles,

On the subject of 'us' and 'them':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/01/rightwing-insurrection-usurps-democracy

Is it any wonder that the world is a chaotic mess. It is peopled in the main by troglodytes, non-thinking individuals who, like sheep, fall for the flood of propaganda espoused by Governments, Corporations, the Media and Oligarchs.

How dare someone come along and question the status quo! How dare someone suggest that the current system is deeply flawed, that it leaves many humans frustrated and empty, that materialism is for zombies, that people should question the way they live their lives and not follow the script set out for them from birth by those who become rich by exploiting and manipulating the poor and the gullible.

Such people want to burn Eisenstein at the stake for daring to put questions into their minds, questions about whether greed is a worthwhile goal, whether humans would be happier living in small communities, whether our lives should spent pursuing artistic pursuits and seeking more creative activities than putting on suits and, for five days a week, living in small cubicles wielding ballpoint pens or tapping on keyboards.

Real thinkers should welcome Eisenstein's book, be excited about the chance to discuss alternative lifestyles.

The zombies will join together to attack it fearing their shares might go down in value or their lives might be shown to be a terrible waste!

David G,
imo the philistinism in this thread is born a) of blanket ignorance of the kind of philosophy you allude to, and b) of incomprehension that any other way of life could be viable, let alone superior. Now does it bother the philistines that the current economic system is patently unsustainable. The poverty is not on the side of offering alternatives, but of defending the current system.

Unfortunately I'll have to stay on the sidelines. But here's a link to an article that might be of interest:
http://newleftreview.org/II/76/wolfgang-streeck-citizens-as-customers

I should add that it's a longish article and the philistines, used to digesting mostly vacuous snippets here, are likely to find both the length and the content challenging. Even should they clear those hurdles, the insurmountable barrier presented by their closed minds remains.
Have a nice day.

Here's a timely article by Zizek on the limits of democracy - against the backdrop of the West's financial crisis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/west-crisis-democracy-finance-spirit-dictators

Humility obliges me to thank the flock for voting me Pope.
I was never comfortable with the popularity contest, masquerading as intellectualism (the real thing is of course despicable--by decree) among the regulars at OLO, and so am content to pronounce ex-cathedra, though it fall ever on deaf ears.
I shall drop-in, God-like, whenever the omniscient whim takes me and delight at confounding your troubled peace.
Shalom.

Are you right there, Squeers?

It occurred to me that you were familiar with Zizek, and considering his article was pertinent to this topic, when I came across it this avo, I thought I'd drop it in.

Seems I misjudged on that one.

Dear Poirot,
One too many glasses of red last night.
Of course you are exempt from my rebukes above.
I have several of Zizek's books and presumed his article was for the benefit of others--though of course he's of the wrong political persuasion.

I think I'll get Eisentstein's book and give it a go.

Ta ta.

I thought a popularity contest plus bribery was traditionally how one got the votes to be elected Pope, Squeers... no problem to me as a lapsed Methodist, if the crown fits, wear it.

You might, though, want to have a word with your news agency as to who the real villains are:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/author-warns-of-anti-humanisms-global-effects/

Squeers, you correctly mention the Philistines who still inhabit the Earth. Unfortunately.

As long as they can enrich themselves by exploiting others they are happy, like pigs in swill. Philosophical reflection, sadly, is beyond them.

You mention red wine. You must be a supporter of Omar Khayyam as am I.

Don't let the Phillies get you down. They deserve your pity!

I see that the screwballs have taken over the thread.

I have no problem with dreaming of how things should be. Reason is required to separate the wheat from the chaff, what is possible from what is fantasy.

I would love the world where everyone was as caring and trustworthy and driven to put the common good ahead of themselves to make this reality work. But the history of humanity indicates that is it more likely that lions can be trained to be vegitarian.

Shadow Minister, it appears as though evolution has left you behind but don't worry; there are many like you.

You use derogatory words like 'screwballs' and 'tripe' to describe those who are real thinkers, those who are leading the pack, whose minds are alert and attuned to change, who can see what a mess the world is in and accept that things must change if it is to be bettered and avoid a nuclear holocaust.

Flat-earthers like you are anachronisms. Your minds are closed and sealed. You are the walking dead. You are trying to bring back the Dark Ages when raping and plundering and putting people to the sword was in vogue.

Stand aside, I say. Go and live in a cave somewhere!

Nice dummy-spit, David G

>>How dare someone come along and question the status quo! How dare someone suggest that the current system is deeply flawed, that it leaves many humans frustrated and empty, that materialism is for zombies, that people should question the way they live their lives and not follow the script set out for them from birth by those who become rich by exploiting and manipulating the poor and the gullible.<<

Questioning the status quo etc. etc. etc. is just fine and dandy. No problem there.

There is a line, however, between raging against the machine, and inventing an entirely unworkable new deal that bears no resemblance to anywhere humans might live.

And then to expect people to crowd around, clap their little handies and tell you what a genius you are, is what encourages the "what a fruitloop" reaction.

>>Such people want to burn Eisenstein at the stake for daring to put questions into their minds<<

So daring, isn't he.

But it wasn't the questions, David G, it was the "answers" that are ridiculous. I suspect you would have been a sucker for the Emperor's new clothes, too.

And just by the way, no-one gets burned at the stake for expressing fruitloop opinions. If they did, we'd have raging bushfires all year round.

>>Real thinkers should welcome Eisenstein's book, be excited about the chance to discuss alternative lifestyles.<<

It doesn't work like that. Real thinkers actually test the hypotheses presented to them, evaluate them against reality, and come to a reasoned conclusion. Real thinkers also have a serious dislike of people crafting "solutions" that are merely a bunch of neo-hippie hogwash, and expect people to faint with awe..

Pericles,

Better to faint with awe than to choke on smog, what say you?

http://www.care2.com/causes/chinas-smog-so-bad-a-huge-fire-burns-unnoticed-for-3-hours.html

Eisenstein's book appears to echo one of my favourite pieces of wisdom from the seventies, "Small is Beautiful", by E.F. Schumacher.

Well you know our civilisation, for all its pretensions is really only a more sophisticated version of our brutishness. Lot's of intelligence and technology, but not much wisdom - its a finite arrangement.

Look what they done to my song.....

They've also paved paradise, Poirot.

And this is as true today as ever.

>>Well you know our civilisation, for all its pretensions is really only a more sophisticated version of our brutishness. Lot's of intelligence and technology, but not much wisdom - its a finite arrangement<<

Wisdom does not necessarily equate with starry-eyed dreaming, though.

DG,

I probably won't be a "free thinker" like you as I eschew recreational halucigenics.

Us anchronistic types will continue to work and strive to build the world in the way we envision, make money, pay taxes etc, and leave the dreaming of a world with marmalade skies to the "free thinkers", safe in the knowledge that the worst they can do is be a drain on the taxpayer.

"Real thinkers actually test the hypotheses presented to them, evaluate them against reality, and come to a reasoned conclusion," says Professor Periclueless.

"So, class, let's gather around and we'll discuss how humans should live their lives. Let's get our test tubes at the ready, the Bunsen burners lit, the logarithm tables ready to hand, our chemicals arranged.

First, we have to come up with a hypothesis. I put forward that the capitalist system is mankind's crowning achievement. (Great applause)

Sure, some humans have been left behind and are starving but most have profited, well, at least 1% have. Why, I have a great share portfolio and I'm buying another investment property next week! (More applause)

Now, humans would be bored if they didn't work. They love wearing suits and working in small offices. (Heavy, drumming applause for three minutes)

Human love competition, love climbing the ladders the corporate world has built for them. It is a system that richly rewards the greed..., er, sorry, the ambitious.

Did I hear mention of the name Socrates? Silly people like him were a handicap to human progress. They despised the businessmen not realizing they were the salt of the earth. Names like Murdoch come to mind.

Now, I want you to go away and write a 3,000 essay on why capitalism is the only show in town. Make sure you include a bibliography and, when you quote important people, make sure you name them less I think you actually said or thought something yourself.

Class dismiss!"

WmTrevor,
Been unable to post till now.
Anti-humanism is a diverse spectrum, and a little more complicated than “a theory which holds that people are fundamentally bad because they destroy things and waste resources”. Anti-humanism on the left merely urges that humanism is a post-Christian ideology, just as removed from reality and finally dedicated to productive-conformity—not for the sake of lofty ideals or humanity’s betterment, but species-monopoly and profit.
I note too that all the atrocities attributed to “anti-humanism” in the article are right-wing ideologies, with the exception of China’s one child policy—and China is a capitalist-authoritarian-oligarchy whose crimes have far more in common with fascist regimes than any left-wing utopianism.
Zubrin sounds much like Matt Ridley with his reckless and indifferent optimism and libertarian free-market “anti-humanism”. My own consistent argument has been that the population explosion and the rape of the planet are the direct consequence of the capitalist dynamic; humanity and all life forms are reduced to fuel for profit. How this or libertarianism—individualism—anti-communitarianism—can be reckoned in any sense “humanistic” I’m unable to fathom.
But in any case, I don’t support knee-jerk anti-population agenda’s like Dick Smiths, which are nationalistic within the context of globalisation he and Australia exploits and profits by. I’ve often been critical of such movements here.
Capitalism is in the process of being compromised naturally—which it cannot tolerate—and the pyramid-scheme of humanity it has built-up will collapse. A controlled-demolition might spare much suffering—but won’t happen.
I’ve also been critical of what I call “dark green” environmentalists, who are removed from reality. Yet these are very few and the Green Demon the right loves to anathematise is a strawman. Most environmentalists are much more thoughtful and practical—whereas their antitypes are about as willing to embrace change as the NRA.
But you’re a thoughtful person I respect and I’m surprised if you’re persuaded by this transparently neoliberal trash.
David G,
Reflecting on Mathew Arnold’s essay, “Culture and Anarchy”, it is the “barbarians” who are most to be despised. As here, the philistines are merely their minions.
http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/3.html

Sarcasm is never a very potent debating tactic, David G.

>>"So, class, let's gather around and we'll discuss how humans should live their lives. Let's get our test tubes at the ready, the Bunsen burners lit, the logarithm tables ready to hand, our chemicals arranged. First, we have to come up with a hypothesis. I put forward that the capitalist system is mankind's crowning achievement. (Great applause)<<

The more so, because you are really not very good at it, I'm afraid.

Here's a teensy clue, which no doubt you will overlook in your headlong rush to justify your fervent anti-capitalism:

Disagreeing with the answer does not mean the question is invalid.

But I can see that your hobby-horse is in mid-gallop, and doesn't intend to stop and listen. So all I can say is, enjoy the ride.

DG,

Making a ridiculous straw man argument only makes you look more pathetic.

Your failure to provide even one example of where a socialist society anywhere near what you propose has worked and your apoplexy at even being asked to do so indicates that your disconnection from reality is a sore point.

Capitalism is flawed, but works and has brought more people out of poverty than any other system. The quote that "capitalism is the worst system in the world, except for everything else" is particularly apt.

Squeers,

I suppose that every true socialist experiment has ending in tyranny is just a huge coincidence?

Squeers, I like the quote you used: 'Reflecting on Mathew Arnold’s essay, “Culture and Anarchy”, it is the “barbarians” who are most to be despised. As here, the philistines are merely their minions.'

The Americans are the world's greatest barbarians closely followed by the British and the French. Collectively, they lead the West towards ever greater killing and destruction.

Of course the Philistines, foolishly claiming they are thinkers, endorse the warmongering and greed of the barbarians because they are too dim-witted to realize that it will soon lead to nuclear war and human extinction.

It is fortunate that people like Eisenstein exist. He shines a light into the cerebral darkness that exists in the swamp-like minds of most humans, even some here on OLO.

Here's John Armstrong on "Barbarism".

"The word 'barbarism' has an unpromising, faintly idiotic origin. It was coined in Ancient Greece as a way of mocking those who did not belong to Hellenic culture and who did not speak one of the Greek dialects.....However, this smug provincial attitude was not as secure as it might seem. The 'barbarians' about whom the Greeks were most concerned were the Persians. The Persians were highly sophisticated, they had the same level of technology as the Greeks, they put large armies in the field and fleets on the seas, their kings had vast economic resources, greater than those of any of the Greek states. So despite its original mocking overtone, 'barbarian' was not a term that applied to people in a weak position......Building on this term, 'barbarism' developed a further, very useful, meaning in the second half of the nineteenth century. Now, it began to be clear, the barbarians were not so much people on the outside, as a powerful and important group within modern developed societies.

This was how Matthew Arnold employed the term: 'When I go through the country and see this and that beautiul and imposing seat of the aristocratic class crowning the landscape, "There," I say to myself, "is a great fortified post of the Barbarians."'

The Barbarians were certainly not people who lacked resources or power; they were healthy, vigorous, chivalrous; they were marked by 'courage, high spirits and self-confidence'; they prized health and good looks. What, one would wonder, can Arnold find to fault them on? In what sense are they Barbarians?

Well, this: their outward accomplishments and possessions - their great material prosperity - are not well directed. They do not serve a higher purpose than their own maintenance. In other words, barbarians have a very high degree of material prosperity but no corresponding spiritual prosperity...in fact lacking a crucial element of true civilization....."

(From 'In Search of Civilization')

Poirot,
thanks for your exegesis, which is spot on!
Arnold provided the template for F R Leavis and Raymond Williams radicalised it--I'm still not sure altogether for the better. It does seem to me civilization should be predicated on some higher purpose--even in an indifferent universe.
I would ask the cohort here, what is the great raison d'être of the modern West?
Anticipating a barren (rather than pregnant) silence, shouldn't we have one?
Is the human race based on nothing more than the gratification of the moment, of the present generation?
If so then perhaps I am a dark green.
I can see why people turn to God.

Hey Squeers, "…and I’m surprised if you’re persuaded by this transparently neoliberal trash" I'd only be surprised if you could draw a conclusion about my opinions from my comments so far… I only drew your attention to the article – its publication by the CNA was an amusing coincidence given your recent interest in popery and earlier support of anti-humanism.

I'm too much of an idealist to want to succumb to reality and too much of a realist to rely on idealism – which gets really confusing when I'm coping with being an idealistic realist. My spirit guide, though, reassures me that I'm not a metaphysicist.

History demonstrates clearly that the more people comprising a 'civilisation' the more chaotically complex the interactions. You don't need Hari Seldon's psychohistory to know that, but you do need the fiction of it to imagine 'we' can effectively influence our society's current circumstances.

Put simply, I prefer wishful thinking treatises to include a how-to manual – or it least an appendix.

When you say, "It does seem to me civilization should be predicated on some higher purpose--even in an indifferent universe" you identify the problem because unless everyone agrees on the same predication you'll end up with "nothing more than the gratification of the moment".

I look forward to when humanity fully adopts the credo from the gospel of 'Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure' to "Be excellent to each other, and party on dudes!"

My confidence is buoyed by the fact the West seems to have adopted the second half of it already.

.

Dear David G.

.

You indicate in your previous post:

"The Americans are the world's greatest barbarians closely followed by the British and the French. Collectively, they lead the West towards ever greater killing and destruction".

The total number of deaths in the two World Wars is estimated at approximately 102 million.

Of course it was Germany who played the lead role on those particular occasions.

Perhaps you have other statistics and projections you may wish to share with us relating to "killing and destruction" by whatever means.

Many thanks in advance.

.

Banjo,

Don't let the screwballs get to you. They have made it abundantly clear that they want desperately to believe in Nirvana, and that facts just get in the way.

They want to believe that America and the UK are the most barbaric countries, and will happily ignore the tens of millions that died at the hands of communist tyrants to enforce "equality" and keep their citizens pure from capitalism. But then, those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The best thing to do is not to challenge their fragile dreams but leave them alone to play in their imaginary sandbox.

sm. who are "they"? i've only equated barbarism with wealthy capitalists. get back to when possible.

Banjo, I am pleased to present to you the following:

" Historian William Blum last year wrote that, since 1945, the US has attempted:
- to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of them democratically elected.
- to suppress a populist or national movement in 20 countries.
- it has grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries.
- it has dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries.
- and it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders."

Banjo, let me also present this information to you:

“I heard too many lies spewed out by Ronald Reagan and the State Department to justify these killings. And by the time I was in Gaza, looking at the twisted limbs of dead women and children and listening to Israeli and U.S. officials describe an Israeli airstrike as a “surgical” hit on Islamic militants, it was over. I knew the dark heart of America.

I knew who we were, what we did, what we actually stood for and the terrifying and willful innocence that permits most Americans to think of themselves as good and virtuous when they are, in reality, members of an efficient race of killers and ruthless profiteers.”

Chris Hedges. American Journalist and Pulitzer Prize Winner.

I hope you find these extracts helpful and if you visit Information Clearing House.org you will find plenty of information that spells out the true nature of 'America' as opposed to its propaganda-based image.

Cheers!

So Steve Jobs was a barbarian, and Stalin, Mao, etc were not?

I see you have to redefine the English language to sustain your fantasy.

Banjo, this may also prove to be helpful:

"The Lies Of Democracy and the Language Of Deceit

By Colin Todhunter

January 18, 2013 "Global Research" -- In an increasingly media-driven age, language is everything and is often used by officialdom to tyrannise meaning. With the deaths of millions on its hands since 1945, the US has become the world’s number one terror state. By the 1980s, former CIA man John Stockwell had put the figure at six million. As a recent article has indicated, from mass bombing in Southeast Asia to employing death squads in South America, the US military and the CIA have been directly and indirectly responsible for an updated figure of an estimated ten million deaths (1)."

And my apologies re an incorrect link in my previous comment. It should be:

http://informationclearinghouse.info

>>the US military and the CIA have been directly and indirectly responsible for an updated figure of an estimated ten million deaths<<

Which is a lot. But Stalin was responsible for 20 million deaths and Mao for 40 million:

http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

So it seems that capitalism - despite it's flaws - is not as deadly as communism. I think that's an important consideration when comparing the relative merits of various economic systems.

Cheers,

Tony

But Tony, keep in mind that the 20 million figure is only a guess-timate and takes no account of issues like the deaths and birth abnormalities arising from Agent Orange and Depleted Uranium, etc.

And given that the Yanks refuse to count civilian casualties (because they don't want the world to know the extent of their world-wide genocide), the figure of 20 million is highly likely to be much, much higher.

However, I think that comparing economic systems on the basis of how many people were or were not killed is ridiculous.

Economics is tied up with politics and the U.S. uses war to provide impetus to its flagging economic system. It makes arms and floods the world with them lubricating and enabling endless wars. It engages in endless invasions, occupations and plundering.

The world will never know peace while the U.S. exists. They are a nation of killers!

WmTrevor,
you're right, I should have noted the publication details, though I don't presume to infer too much from your comments here or elsewhere. You seem to take a Wildean approach to things and I can certainly relate to that. I wear my opinions on my sleeve, as what good are they if they don't confront closed minds and provoke debate? I might end up cherishing them, whereas I'm a humble student of life and only want to test them.
I can't help thinking an ironical perspective is an abnegation of responsibility, especially when held by privileged westerners whose nihilism tends to be droll rather than sincere.

Shadow Minister,
I confess I'm not a member of the Steve Jobs fan club.
And yes, according to Arnold's argument Jobs is more of a barbarian than Stalin and Mao.
What "fantasy" do you allude to?

Watching the brash Bernard Thomic versus Federer match (only so I could admire the glitterati in the audience) it occurs to me that Arnold's modern barbarians are Greg Norman, Tiger Woods, Michael Clarke et al.
But even more than these, their Barbie Doll girlfriends.
I'm starting to think maybe Squeers is a bit of a misogynist. Well at least he despises these vacuous playmates of the rich and famous men--the way they paracitise them and soak up the vicarious celebrity status makes me want to burn my bra. Though its hard to trump one's loathing of the real thing; Shane Warne, for instance, who could "will" the flip of a coin (talent's got nothing to do with it). Judging by their lack of intimacy, I predict he and Liz Hurley are on the rocks--and what happened to his blonde locks, and his lovable beer-swilling antics?--though I can't be sure as they kept switching to the bloody tennis!
By the way, S&M, did you catch that interview with Malcolm Fraser on channel 24 this arvo? It seems he endorses David G's assessment of the US (god bless 'em), and loathes Tony Abbott beyond measure..
Who do you think the new leader will be?

.

Dear David G., Shadow Minister and Tony Lavis,

.

Apparently I inadvertently opened the lid of Pandora's box.

All the demons of the underworld seem to have surfaced on this forum.

Of course all nations have an attractive front window display and a gruesome torture chamber hidden in the basement. I must confess, however, that I had not imagined the extent and gravity of the covert international criminal activity of some of the world's most powerful nations in their attempt to determine the internal politics of other, less powerful, independent, sovereign nations.

The fact that some of these powerful nations are genuine democracies domestically is particularly disturbing. Their use of double standards, democracy at home and terrorism abroad, is totally inacceptable. Those responsible should be made accountable for their actions.

While I imagine that most of this underground geo-political criminal activity is ignored by the general public, it must obviously be considered an acceptable strategy by the political leaders of the countries which practice it. And that must be true throughout the full political spectrum, from left to right, capitalist to communist, democrat to totalitarian and so forth. It is obviously not limited to ideologists or fanatics. Even the silence of so-called moderates can only signify approval.

It seems that the psyche of nations duplicates that of individuals. The "ego" struggles to strike a balance between the lust for power of the "id" and the lofty moral standards of the "super-ego", but with only as much success as its collective sense of humanity will allow.

Thank you all for bringing this to my attention. I appreciate it.

.

Banjo, it was my pleasure to provide you with some evidence for my concerns. However my major concern is that these nations, led by the U.S., the ones that hide behind the mask of 'Democracies', are leading the world towards a nuclear holocaust.

The U.S. is attempting to gain domination of the world for its own selfish benefit and has pulled Australia into its imperial plans. Russia and China will not allow themselves to be 'contained' by the Yanks (and neither should they) so the scene is set for global confrontation and nukes will be used.

The U.S. is world enemy No 1! It is run by greedy psychopaths who are backed up by powerful corporations who only care about profits. Like Lance Armstrong, the U.S. will use any means to dominate the world, means like torture, rendition, shock and awe, bribery, threats, assassination squads, drones, depleted uranium and napalm, etc, etc.

The U.S. is already infesting Australia and will use us to achieve its goals even if that means losing our friendship with China and alienates us from our near neighbours.

If Australia doesn't assert its sovereignty and neutrality, it will become isolated and disliked!

Terrific that this review has generated so much discussion.

The 'communism' (i.e. Stalinism and Maoism) vs 'capitalism' debate is by its nature very polarising. It is possible - though rather macabre, to say the least - to compile 'death tolls' and crimes of the respective system, and indeed that has been done in the case of both systems (see this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism#Estimated_number_of_victims_2 - for 20th century communism, and this link - http://amodernmanifesto.tumblr.com/thecrimesofcapitalism - for capitalism + colonialism + imperialism from 1500 to the present day).

Whatever one thinks of those respective lists, it is worth bearing in mind that while 20th century communism is, a few die-hard pockets aside (i.e. North Korea) is no longer with us, capitalism very much is. While we can debate over how causes are to be apportioned, it is reasonably well-established that, in addition to episodes of direct and intentional large-scale violence (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan), capitalism produces considerable indirect (i.e. economic) excess mortality. For example, the large numbers of children dying daily due to malnutrition have much to do with the use of land and food for profit (e.g. growing palm oil for biofuelsrather than prioritising those resources to meet basic human needs. If large swathes of land in Africa etc can be more profitably used to grow fuel for cars, and malnutrition results as a consequence, then that is merely the 'collateral damage' of contemporary capitalism.

Eisenstein is no advocate of 20th century communism or socialism, and neither am I. The record speaks for itself. That said, the notion that contemporary capitalism, with its callous and ruthless disregard for human well-being, dignity and ecosystem integrity, and its constant tendency towards systemic breakdown and ever-more lethal warfare, is the best that we as humanity are capable of, is frankly depressing to say the least. The role of utopian thinkers such as Eisenstein is to demonstrate that we are capable, not only of imagining a better system, but of taking concrete steps to live it. In my view this is a valuable and necessary role, and always has been throughout human history.

Sadly, that's where it all fell apart.

>>The role of utopian thinkers such as Eisenstein is to demonstrate that we are capable, not only of imagining a better system, but of taking concrete steps to live it.<<

Imagining a "better system" is one thing. Although even there, Mr Eisenstein clearly has more than a few detractors.

But there is absolutely no vestige of credibility in any of the "concrete steps" that are outlined for us here.

Of course, it is also entirely possible that Mr Rose has done an appalling job in conveying the essence of Mr Eisenstein's work. Which would be a shame for Mr Eisenstein, but would also explain great deal.

.

Dear David G. and Nick Rose,

.

David -

Tony Lavis indicated some figures on Russia and China's death toll in his last post. These related to "domestic" terrorism (if we accept that Russian "domesticity" extended throughout the whole of the Soviet Union at the time).

In your last post you indicate: " The U.S. is attempting to gain domination of the world ... Russia and China will not allow themselves to be 'contained' by the Yanks ..." Are you implying that neither Russia nor China indulges in the same underground geo-political criminal activity as the U.S.?

It is possible that Russia and China practice domestic terrorism and respect democracy internationally - i.e., exactly the inverse of the U.S. double standards. But it is also possible that strict censorship controls at all levels of the administration and lack of freedom of the press ("domestic" terrorism) in those countries prevents information on any covert activities leaking out.

Nick -

Thank you for your additional statistics from "The Black Book of Communism" and the "Twentieth Century Atlas on Death Tolls".

While I have a certain amount of sympathy for the life and works of Karl Marx, I must say I do not nurture the same sentiments as regards Charles Eisenstein. Perhaps the two are not comparable.

But don't get me wrong, to be quite honest, I would never live permanently in either Russia or China, preferring my Australian homeland or my adopted country of residence, France.

I see from Eisenstein's web site that he is 46 yrs old, divorced and remarried and has three boys, two of whom are now teenagers. He indicates he " will probably write another book soon on gift". So it seems his theory on world economics is still "work in progress".

I only have two daughters but they are now nearly as old as me and that's pretty old.

Judging from my personal experience of bringing up children, I bet Eisenstein will seriously revise his theory on gift and, subsequently, world eonomics, before the final chapter.

.

"You seem to take a Wildean approach to things and I can certainly relate to that." I think that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me to Squeers… as it does reflect my increasing observation that just about everything is epigrammatically reducible. (Unlike nihilists who have got nothing!)

You must have noticed that every issue presented on OLO, including how economies should be shaped, is reducible to, "The problem is what other people do."

Likewise, you must have noticed that the solution for everything is reducible to, "Other people should do what I say."

So I'm absolutely sincere in the credo I offered (with ascription) as the 'solution to everything'. But in the spirit of compromise I'm prepared to forget about the partying bit, as long as everyone adheres to "Be excellent to each other…"

But Eisenstein, Nick Rose and you and me don't know how to make this happen.

I wish I did.

[I'd make a fortune!]

I have stood by and watched as screwballs have bandied around figures of people that the US is directly or indirectly responsible for killing of between 10m and 20m. None of this is supported. The only website I found that tried to substantiate this included all the war dead in any conflict the US was involved in. For example apparently the North Koreans, and the Chinese bear no reaponsibility whatsoever for the millions of dead in Korea. Similarly Sadam Hussein was totally blameless for the first gulf war.

The other non conflict related figures was admittedly guesstimates, but still exceeded estimates by human rights organisations.

The totals killed by communists in their own countries, with no conflict, and simply to put down dissent is closer to 100m. The 20m I quoted for Stalin was only for the purges in the 1930s.

WmTrevor,
I've been researching materialism and idealism, in various contexts, for three years and they tend to be mutually exclusive. On the one hand idealism gets nothing done--it's like a bad conscience; on the other hand when it gains sufficient momentum it can overthrow the society, or the sinner. Idealism of that sought can then all to easily tend to tyranny, since it has absolute conviction on its side, thus "The problem is what other people do."
This is one reason why Marx never pontificated about communism; the challenge is not to idealise the perfect society (idealism is the enemy in whatever guise), but to reform the present one. This goes on more or less automatically in a democracy--to a point only, window dressing, political correctness. But what does one do if the society is fundamentally-bad (built on and "dependent" on inequity and unsustainable practices?) Capitalism cannot be reformed; it's not a matter of micro-economics, capitalism per se is the problem.
You say "Be excellent to each other…", but how can we be in a system that is fundamentally competitive, mercenary and unequal? To be excellent to each other among our peers is all well and good, but in the present system it's patronising or condescending or obsequious or disingenuous etc.
Where the conservatives get it wrong is that in a system where we are all equal in the first instance--material wants--there is infinite scope and impetus for "genuine" individuality and diversity.
As it is the precious libertarian individual is nothing more than a delusion, a commodity, his individual distinctiveness dormant or a caricature.

According to Marx a mode of production continues until it's no longer viable and then it's overthrown. But he underestimated capitalism and I think it'll collapse long before it's overthrown.

SM,
I can't imagine anyone defending Stalin or Mao etc. But they didn't preside over socialist or communist societies. In a capitalist world they succumbed to idealism and paranoia and were mere tyrannies. When the capitalist pyramid finally collapses it will have been responsible for more death and misery than all the other travesties put together.

Squeers,

"Stalin or Mao ... didn't preside over socialist or communist societies."

What level of self delusion is required for that statement?

socialism:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Communism:

A classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community.

Stalin and Mao presided over text book communist / socialist societies, and either had to ruthlessly enforce them or covert to capitalism to lift their societies out of poverty.

As for the collapse of capitalism, there is no indication of it happenning any time soon.

You have my complete attention, Squeers.

>>Where the conservatives get it wrong is that in a system where we are all equal in the first instance--material wants--there is infinite scope and impetus for "genuine" individuality and diversity.<<

How so?

First of all, in what kind of society do you envisage people having "equal material wants"? Isn't this the antithesis of how humans operate, some happy to live in a commune and barter dope for food, others who see this as no more than a living hell?

What happens to "equal material wants" when one exercises one's individuality and diversity - would that not cause it to collapse in upon itself? And exactly how would you prevent the situation where person A, exercising their individuality and diversity, opens a shop selling shoes? That would be patently represent inequality of material want, compared for example to someone who preferred to, for example, barter dope for food.

Would you therefore not need to legislate equality, thus negating the whole point?

What you describe represents a process of "reverse development", in which society as we know it, and have benefitted from as people, eventually ceases to exist.

Interesting comment - "commodification of almost anything imaginable (including water, soil, and now the atmosphere)". Commodification is obviously not a new thing, but our food, data about ourselves, our labour, and everything we use (even the electrons that run our internet and power) are commodities, and many of these things are just as vital as air and water - just seems like a logical progression for them to become commoditised also.
However, water, air, iron ore, oil, etc, are natural resources and belong to the people. The sooner the wealth generated from these commodities (all of them), is returned to the people, the better, rather than lining the pockets of exceedingly wealthy individuals and companies. Of course, those of us at the bottom of the heap all would like to see a change in the commodification of everything, but until it's too late, I expect this will not happen.
People (in a small way) are starting to reclaim some control over whether they use commodities or not, by growing their own food, producing their own electricity, catching their own water, etc. but there is only so far we can go. The average city house block is not sufficiently large to grown enough food for an entire family, water tanks and treatment systems, and batteries for storing generated power, are expensive, and therefore, without some commodification we would not survive in our current world, and for many generations into the future, I expect.
I understand the author has the luxury of living in a beautiful part of the country and may be able to live relatively self-sufficiently, or in a community that can support this, but we also need to keep in perspective how our lights stay on at night, how our mobile phones just magically work (most of the time), where our petrol comes from, the steel and bricks and sawn timber to build our houses, and the list goes on... These are all commodities and unfortunately, since we (as a society) have lost much of the ability to do things ourselves (from scratch), we can't live without them...

Of course I don't talk of absolute material equality, Pericles, and our material requirements and comforts would vary, for sure, and ideally be accommodated to a point. I have no desire to live exactly the same as the next man, or to live in your evocative caricature of a commune. I'm not talking about homogeneity, just a fair and equitable share of "renewable" production and resources. Let's not forget that we're not only idealising here; that every family and every society ultimately has to live within its means--on what's available and what can be husbanded.
You like the example of worthless dope-peddlers, but how are the exploiters of dynastic wealth or unfair advantage, generally, any more morally upstanding? The dope peddler is a paragon in comparison.
You're arguing within the context of the capitalist system, as though its anti-morality was the inevitable backdrop against which we must project alternative societies.
I'm thinking of a society not remotely similar to capitalism, where by mutual consent one is not permitted to attain undue wealth and influence, and thus where "exercising their individuality and diversity" means just that; individuality as genuine talent/distinctiveness in whatever attainment it might be, and not in accumulating wealth and leverage, or keeping up with the Joneses.
Yes you would have to have a few rules, a cap on personal-wealth and assets, for instance (I remember you agreeing on this point once), but this needn't be severe, in fact only within the bounds of what's both sustainable and modest according to social norms and common decency.
I foresee such a society would be far less regulated than this one, which regulates every inanity while it overlooks the enormities.
Yes I'm talking about deconstruction, but also reconstruction.
Though I admit it's academic and I'm a pessimistic realist.
In one respect only I'm free; I dare to think critically and argue constructively.

Squeers, your view, as expressed in the following, is like a verdent oasis in a stony desert: "Yes you would have to have a few rules, a cap on personal-wealth and assets, for instance (I remember you agreeing on this point once), but this needn't be severe, in fact only within the bounds of what's both sustainable and modest according to social norms and common decency."

You have restored my hope that there do exist some humans, a few, who can see beyond their own insatiable greed for treasure and power, a greed that will one day bring about human extinction.

No great loss I fear but sad for thinking people like you!

My thanks to Nick Rose for posting the article and to David G for your fortitude in the face of much vitriolic comment. If any one of the people making such comment were to take the trouble to read the "Shock doctrine" by Naomi Kline they might begin to know where you are coming from. I also am deeply concerned about the inequitous and exploitative nature of unfettered globalised capitalism and the Freidmann economic orthodoxy which still underpins it.

Contrary to the belief that others want to cling to I am of the opinion that capitalism as we have known it may be reaching its endgame. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are international corporations. These corporations have almost total control of the worlds economic function and are peaking in their profit taking.

This redirection of wealth is depleting the spending power of the west's populace while also failing to build spending power in the poorer countries, China being a notable exception. Without spending power people can't buy, markets die and capital becomes worthless. Isn't this what happening now?
Den71

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You wrote to Wm Trevor: " I've been researching materialism and idealism, in various contexts, for three years and they tend to be mutually exclusive ".

I'm intrigued.

I understand materialism to mean " the physical world is all that exists ", idealism being " the image we have of the physical world at its best ".

The question which then arises is "are images part of the physical world ? " If they are, no problem. If they are not, I can understand why you suggest that the concepts of materialism and idealism "tend to be mutually exclusive".

Of course the images in this context are mental images, imagination, or shall we say simply, ideas. Are ideas part of the physical world ?

I must confess that I am rather tempted, in my crude, Aussie bushwhacker fashion, to pick up my axe and chop the Gordian knot in order to unbind it. Yes, I consider that ideas are part of the physical world.

I consider energy to be part of the physical world. I consider life to be part of the physical world. I understand that life resulted from a random combination of matter and energy. And that some forms of life, including human beings, have developed a degree of autonomy such that they can determine their own course of action without any outside interference. I understand that this faculty is a function of the brain, known as the thought process, thoughts, of course, being ideas.

Perhaps, one day, we will develop robots capable of attaining the same degree of autonomy as human beings, capable of having ideas as we do. Their ideas, like ours, will also be part of the physical world. Won't they ? Or will we have managed to invent the immaterial ?

But then, no doubt, mine is a simplistic view. I would be delighted if you would share something with us of your three year endeavour.

.

David G.
I too am heartened that there are people out there who can think outside the narrow province of immediate self interest. What we're all required to do is assess our personal, social and global situation honestly and critically in terms of its ethics and sustainability. Unfortunately hegemonic thought (non thought) rationalises broadly that "whatever seems good for me must be good". It's no easy to reflect critically, but any chance of change depends upon it.

Banjo Paterson,
if I get the chance I'll attempt something potted. Though I may not and I don't think your understanding is simplistic anyway.
Our experience of the world is a self-representation both empirical and confabulated. We don't "see" much detail because the "mind" isn't concerned with minutia and the brain rushes ahead to provide us with useful representation; seamless real-time footage. Much of what's available to the senses is cognitively invisible or filtered-out until the brain gets the message to notice it. Even then, the "mind" translates, or makes sense of, the data into meaningfully pre-given conceptual form. We never see the world unadulterated, and even the representation that receives priority is pre-written and thus pre-conceived, like this web page.
Well that's one bit of potted theory. I don't subscribe to reductionist materialism, which dominates but has real problems.

I knew we had much in common, Squeers... I've said I'm an 'idealistic realist', you've identified as a 'pessimistic realist' so obviously we agree we share reality.

As well as - I recall - respect for William James who said, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

Which no doubt only applies to other people.

Though he did also say, “Anything you may hold firmly in your imagination can be yours.” which, by experiment I've proved, does not apply to visible parts of one's anatomy.

I enjoyed doing economics primarily for its rigour in the study of the motivation of people in groups and the extrapolation of this into demand for goods, production, innovation, etc, and the success it had in predicting behaviour.

What has become clear is that none of NR, DG or Squeers have an inkling of economics, because if they had, they would realise their ideal person that occupies their nirvana has never existed, and probably never will.

Touche WmTrevor,
what we call reality is of course not phenomenal, it's ideological.

I don't know why it's called "economics", SM, since it only recognises capitalist economics; it ought to be called "theology".

"...Which no doubt only applies to other people".

Good point. It is a constant worry that one is merely venting prejudice or some vested interest or psychological need etc.
Hence the vital necessity of reflection. But it could well be we're incapable of objective thought. If it is possible it would suggest there is an idealistic centre or realm.

Always nice jousting with you (and your mentor : ).

SM accuses those of us who beg to differ from his rigidly inflexible worldview as ignorant of economics because our supposed 'ideal person' (a strawman, if ever there was one) ‘never has existed and never will’.

The following statement "I enjoyed doing economics primarily for its rigour in the study of the motivation of people in groups and the extrapolation of this into demand for goods, production, innovation, etc, and the success it had in predicting behaviour" merely confirms Herb Thompson's argument from 1997, that neoclassical economics produces 'ignorance squared', given its basis in unreal (and unfalsifiable - thus unscientific) - assumptions, to wit:

"The 'rational' consumer of the mainstream economist is a working assumption that was meant to free economists from dependence on psychology...The dilemma is that the assumption of rationality as intertemporally optimising is often confused with, and regularly presented as, real, purposive behaviour. In fact, the living consumer in historical time routinely makes decisions in undefined contexts. They muddle through, they adapt, they copy, they try what worked in the past, they gamble, they take uncalculated risks, they engage in costly altruistic activities, and regularly make unpredictable, even unexplainable, decisions..."

Further, the ‘mathematical rigour’ of neoclassics which SM recalls so fondly, simply serves to mask a blatantly ideological project of class power:

“Neoclassical economics has represented, for two hundred years, the political self-representation of autonomous, self-subsistent, and self-interest-optimising individuals. The populist works of Friedman (1962) in Capitalism and Freedom, or the more adrenalin-pumping stuff of Ayn Rand (1952 and 1957) in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged provide adroit examples of the ideological and political content in the grasp of the "Invisible Hand". It is here where the connection between promoting ignorance-squared and ideological construction is entwined.”

For those of a critical and reflective bent, see here for the full, peer-reviewed article - http://www1.aucegypt.edu/faculty/thompson/herbtea/articles/jie2.html

.

Economies should be shaped to suit man - Comments ...

.

"CAP" ON INCOMES -

Though France's highest court rejected as non-constitutional recent legislation to introduce what may be interpreted as a "cap" of € 1 million ($Aus 1.3 million) on incomes by applying a 75% tax rate on income in excess of that amount, President Hollande is determined to push the legislation through.

The US put a similar "cap" on income during the 1950s -1960s by applying a 91% marginal tax rate. It was gradually reduced but remained about 70% higher than the marginal rates of France and Germany for many years. It is now down to 35%.

The UK applied a marginal tax rate of just under 100% during the 1940s -1950s and again from 1975 - 1980. France has had the highest marginal tax rate of all nations since 1980. It currently stands at 50%.

Australia's marginal tax rate is 45%.


ASSET ACCUMULATION -

Most "economists" would probably agree that non-productive or "sleeping" assets are bad for the economy.

With this in mind, I strongly recommend reading, or re-reading, Glen Coulton's article published on OLO on 6 February 2012, entitled "Is the Ellis Defence moral ? ".

Nationalisation by the Commonwealth Government of the Roman Catholic Church Trust Property's assets and recycling them into the economy on an equitable basis would have a beneficial effect for the economy and allow the Catholic Church to concentrate on its mission which the institution, itself, defines as "spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity ".

It does not need to accumulate "sleeping" assets and huge, non-productive wealth in order to do that.

Here is the link to Coulton's article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13207

.

Nick, Squeers,

I gather from your responses that neither of you have any training in economics. I took the time to read some of the articles by Herb Thomson, and some others critical of "neoclassical economics", and his work and those of his ilk are living proof that if you look hard enough you will find someone that supports any viewpoint.

Many of his criticisms of economics have some validity, but Herb and others draw a very long bow to reach their conclusions. One of their arguments is that the economically rational man does not exist. No serious economist has claimed that he does. This model represents what most or sufficient people will do in a situation. For example, two petrol stations open, one selling petrol at $1 per litre, and one at $1.05 /l. The rational man would always go to the first station, but in reality some don't for various reasons. However, most/sufficient will do so to justify the model. (Squeers this works for capitalists, socialists or even nirvanians.) The model human that Eisenstein is trying to portray that would be happy in his nirvana has yet to evolve.

The other criticism that most of the economic models are not all inclusive is also pretty feeble, especially when many of these other values (such as environmental) are difficult to quantify. Those using these simpler models are perfectly aware that there will be errors, but prefer to be 90% correct than guessing.

Herb, and others like him think that what they say is revolutionary, but in reality, they are only tinkering on the fringes.

SM,

It's either "full throttle capitalism" or "misguided notions of nirvana" with you, isn't it....

There is room for some middle ground.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/10/small-is-beautiful-economic-idea

Gee Shadow, I found your comment as an economic expert interesting. I didn't know that training in economics made a person a know-all. I majored in economics and I certainly don't feel that I know everything like you.

Your comment was: "Those using these simpler models are perfectly aware that there will be errors, but prefer to be 90% correct than guessing." So 90% correct is enough, eh? Where does the cut-off point for guessing click in?

So if Israel decides to drop a nuke on Iran because it's 90% sure that it is trying to make a nuke that's fine with you, is it?

Better read your economic textbooks again, methinks!

Poirot,

Don't lie. I have never claimed that it must be all or nothing. Pure capitalism is as much a fantasy as Rose's nirvana. Don't put words in my mouth.

DG,

I don't claim to know everything, but I do know enough to spot a BS artist when I see one. You earlier claimed your qualification for talking on this subject was a major in psycology, now suddenly it includes a major in economics. I'm sorry, but it looks as though you are making it up as you go along. In fact your comparison of the decision making to nuke Iran with deciding economic policy is so irrational as to cast doubt as to whether you had any tertiary eduction at all.

You stand there on your soap box pontificating and calling anyone that questions your fantasy, or who dares to ask for any justification, as philistines. If you want to pose as a know it all / Guru, at least try and give more justification than your word.

Thanks for the link to the article, Nick Rose.

I haven't studied economics, but I've read enough to get by. Blowd if I know how it claims to be a "science". Apart from the fact that it's dedicated to capitalism, rather than objective, or that mainstream economists are nearly always wrong about everything, hardly any of them even saw the GFC coming!

SM,
it's not David G calling you a philistine, it's Mathew Arnold.

SM,

So sorry to impugn your honour, however, that's the impression you give.

Squeers,

"Blowd if I know how it claims to be a "science".

Good point.

Schumacher elaborates:

"...When an economist delivers a verdict that this or that activity is 'economically sound' or 'uneconomic', two important and closely related questions arise: first, what does this verdict mean? And, second, is the verdict conclusive in the sense that practical action can easonably be based on it.

Going back into history, we may recall that when there was talk about founding a professorship for political economy at Oxford 150 years ago, many people were by no means happy about the prospect.... John Stuart Mill(1806-73) looked upon political economy' not as a thing by itself, but as a fragment of a greater whole; a branch of social philosophy, so interlinked with all the other branches that its conclusions, even in its own particular province, are only true unconditionally, subject to interference and counteraction from causes not directly within its scope'. And even Keynes...admonished us not to 'overestimate the importance of the economic problem or sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater or more permanent significance'.

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, with increasing affluence, economics has moved into the very centre of public concern, and economic performance, economic growth, economic expansion, and so forth have become the abiding interest, if not the obsession, of all modern societies. In the current vocabulary of condemnation there are few words as final and conclusive as the word 'uneconomic'. Anything that is found to be an impediment to economic growth is a shameful thing, and if people cling to it, they are thought of as either saboteurs of fools. Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be 'uneconomic' you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow and prosper."

Dear Shadow, I'm not going to put up a transcript on OLO for obvious reasons. In the University that I attended, one that is recognized around the world, I had to do two majors and I did. And I passed with Distinction, top 5%.

Here is another example of your ignorance and parochialism which is often on display.

Cheers.

DG, to reiterate:

You said,
what are your qualifications to make such a statement?
I replied,
I have degrees in engineering, economics and statistics, and an MBA.
You continued.
Shadow Minister, my major training was in psychology.

Much later you add that you have Economics as a major. Firstly as this would have been supremely relevant at that point, did you forget? Secondly, did you do a BComm or BSc, as the two subjects are from two separate disciplines, and a degree normally requires that the two majors are from the same discipline. My suspicions (probably from my ignorance and parochialism), from your pathetic comments, and your feigned or real ignorance of economics are that you are lying.

On top of that, your propensity to dish out insults whenever someone disagrees with you is crass and vulgar. Certainly debating was not in you curriculum. Perhaps you believe that you know everything and that your words are pearls before swine. But educated people need more than your pomposity to be convinced.

SM, I am gratified that you took the trouble to read Thompson's article. As you seem disposed to at least consider alternative perspectives, can I suggest you also have a look at the work of John McMurtry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McMurtry. I think you have to be affiliated to an academic institution to get full access to the Life-Blind Structure of the Neo-Classical Paradigm, but this will give you an idea of the argument:

Abstract
This paper...analyses Hodgson''s Economic As Moral Science as a path-breaking internal critique of neo-classical economic theory, and it then demonstrates that the underlying neo-classical paradigm he presupposes suffers from a deeper-structural myopia than his standpoint recognizes. EMS mainly exposes the a priori moral prescriptions underlying orthodox consumer choice theory – namely, its classical utilitarian ground and four or, as argued here, five hidden universal categorical-ought prescriptions which the theory presupposes as instrumental imperatives: (1) comparability evaluations by all consumer judgements; (2) non-satiety of consumer desire; (3) consistency and transitivity of consumer preferences; (4) diminishing rate of marginal substitution by consumer choice; and (5) an unlimited aggregate growth of commodity production, or "the liberal growth ethic"...The principal objection to Hodgson''s magisterial expos of neo-classical doctrine''s moral a priorism is that the latter''s normative presuppositions are profoundly deranged at a level that he himself assumes as given. In consequence, there is theoretical closure at three levels: (1) to the underlying "life economy" of non-priced and non-profit production and distribution of goods otherwise in short supply; (2) to the "civil commons" infrastructure sustaining these non-commodity systems of social and ecological production and distribution; and (3) to the systemic despoiling of both by monetized market mechanisms which are falsely assumed as the defining limits of "the economy".

Dimissing and denigrating someone's views simply because they have not completed formal study in a certain discipline is classic elitism, by the way. I have degrees in law, political economy and international development, but I would welcome reasoned (as distinct from knee-jerk) discussions with anyone on those topics, regardless of their background.

SM,

It's always fascinating witness hypocrisy in action...as in:

"....your propensity to dish out insults whenever someone disagrees with you is crass and vulgar."

Of course, earlier in the thread one of your apparently courteous and benevolent opening lines to a post went like this -

"I see the screwballs have taken over the thread."

and

"I have stood by and watched as screwballs have bandied around figures...."

You informed David G along the way that his words showed that he was not a logical thinker, not a rational person not a seeker of truth through reality and that he is an enthusiastic disciple of current fads..."

Nothing wrong with a bit of a rhetorical tussle with fellow posters, however, when people feign indignation and look down their middle-class noses, invoke a duel in qualifications and accuse their opponents of being "crass and vulgar" while themselves indulging in precisely the behaviour they criticise - that's hypocrisy.

Nick and Poirot, don't worry about SM. Being a shadow, he has no substance and has never had an original idea in his or her life.

All he or she is capable of is ankle-nipping and making a lot of unintelligible noise.

He's best ignored!

P,

While I understand that I am far from a saint, if you look at previous comments, I have pretty much mirrored his insults. Where he refers to philistines, I refer to screwballs eg his comment.

"The words you have written thus far show clearly that you are not an abstract thinker, not a spiritual person, not a student of philosophy."

Is mirrored by mine.

Nick,

You have provided a comprehensive reading list, and while I will endeavour to tackle some of it, however, I probably won't be able to comment knowledgably before the thread ends.

What I will say in the interim, is that perhaps my economics lecturer was more liberal than most in that he made an effort to point out the limitations, As with any modelling based on limited information, the better the information, the better the modelling. There are definitely areas where the information is sparse, and modelling is really informed guessing such as environmental issues where "value" etc are very hard to determine.

However, there many areas where the information is solid and the models are accurate reflections of human behaviour, and these very firmly predict catastrophe for the Nirvana that Eisenstein envisages.

SM, I can't have DG getting all the credit; I'm the one who introduced philistinism into the debate and Poirot was kind enough to clarify for your benefit.

If you want to look at real accuracy in terms of economic prediction you ought to read Marx's "Capital". He got the revolution wrong, but the rest of the disaster is accurately plotted.

You say Eisenstein's "nirvana" is heading for "catastrophe", but how do you defend the catastrophe that's already more or less assured by standard economics?
Since you know something of the subject I sincerely beg you to tell me, for instance, how it is they can model endless economic growth within a closed system, with finite resources and finite potential for expansion? Which doesn't even take into account that the system being exploited is living, self-regulating (in balance in terms of human chronology) and therefore vulnerable.

I absolutely cannot comprehend you and your ilk! You're blind to the bleedin' obvious, dismissive of evidence, and oblivious to argument.

You can take a running jump. Isn't that what lemmings do?

Fair enough, SM, but if you wish to berate someone for their behaviour and style, it's best not to have been seen to emulate it.

When John Heyood (http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/abditorium/nonesoblind.htm) coined the proverb, 'There are none so blind as those who will not see', he must have had in mind the latter-day adherents (read, religious devotees) of neo-classical economics. Their unshakeable faith in the correctness and validity of their beloved doctrine's mathematical models, in the face of any and all evidence and attempts at rational persuasion to the contrary, surely resembles nothing so much as a bizarre form of secular religious fundamentalism.

At one time, of course, the same could have been said about ultra-orthodox Marxists who refused to acknowledge the perversions of Soviet or Chinese 'communism'. However those days are long gone, and if there are any such people still around, they are - with the exception of the North Korean dictators, hardly in a position to do any harm. The same cannot be said of neoclassical / neoliberal economists, whose distorted worldviews still drive the relentless machine forward each day.

For a big picture perspective on where all we are headed on current trends, have at look at this: http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/182156_526469684053149_363315334_n.jpg. Bear in mind that the major driver of deforestation is monocultural agriculture, which produces commodities - for profit, and profit alone.

I don't include you in the above, SM, since it appears you are willing to read and reflect on alternative views and critical perspectives of neoclassics with something akin to an open mind. I will be overjoyed if I hear you have purchased and intend to read either The Cancer Stage of Capitalism or Value Wars. Or - even better - both!

.

Dear David, Poirot, Shadow & Squeers,

.

I see you have been talking about me during my absence.

I confess that I am indeed a philistine when it comes to academic pursuit, having ceased all formal education just prior to my fourteenth birthday.

But don't worry, I'll forgive you for that.

I won't bore you with the details of my rough-and-ready life in the bush. Though I enjoyed it, I am still a bit frustrated I was never able to realise my childhood dream of becoming a drover.

We all get frustrated at times and I'm not surprised a lot of economists are frustrated at the moment. Human behaviour is pretty difficult to pin down. I have a lot of sympathy for them as I do for meteorologists.

I doubt that either of them has the means of identifying, capturing and weighing up all the variables on an ongoing basis. Perhaps they will one day but they obviously still have a long way to go.

They may have more success concentrating on the purely local level but even that seems fairly hazardous. I have in mind the story of those Canadian Indians who continued in the tradition of their ancestors, teaching their young boys how to build wooden fishing boats, not knowing that European settlers were building a dam several hundred miles up-stream to divert the river to their farm lands.

Despite the difficulties, constant frustration and ridicule they must endure, I am not aware of any viable alternatives to the scientific methods they employ in their respective disciplines.

Perhaps you will agree that given the state of the art of present day meteorology, economics and the humanities, we are all more or less in the same boat - just like those Canadian Indian tribes.

Hopefully, even a philistine from Queensland's Darling Downs like me may not be completely out of his depth when discussing such matters.

.

Nick,

'There are none so blind as those who will not see', ...... in the face of any and all evidence and attempts at rational persuasion to the contrary,

Actually I could say that of you. Economics does not predict that everything will be wonderful, Economics actually predicts that common resources such as forests, fisheries, etc would be depleted unless a value is attached to them and enforced. The rainforests that are being depleted today are in countries that have no enforcement, and where individuals see profit in stripping the land.

Common goods, need to be provided or protected by governments. This is a well establish economic principle. That it is not applied universally does not mean that the economics has failed, rather that the governments have.

All the chicken littles that are running around predicting the end of civilisation as we know it seem to be continually disappointed, as the global economy continues to thrive and drag more people out of poverty.

Banjo Paterson,

Why would you think I/we were referring to you as an example of a "philistine"?

As far as I can glean from your postings, you constantly seek meaning and to understand.

Banjo Paterson,

I'm afraid by your own account you don't qualify for Mathew Arnold's category of "philistinism"; you're of the "populace", the salt of the earth--at least according to your childhood idyll.

SM:
"All the chicken littles that are running around predicting the end of civilisation as we know it seem to be continually disappointed, as the global economy continues to thrive and drag more people out of poverty".

I'm not sure you can say it's "thriving"--and neither is the planet upon which it has thrived hitherto--it's just lurching from one crisis to another, and perpetual economic crises also invoke geo-political crises. Creative destruction is precisely the parable Banjo conjures above, and it begets resentment. All cultural/natural stability is gone, sold down river; is it any wonder the West is so hated by so many, even its own? David G's nuclear war is a logical extrapolation of the "realist" paradigm (a nightmare) we've created.
Things are always unthinkable until they happen--like 9/11.
But you just go on promoting your best of all possible worlds.

SM, you really do need to do a bit more reading beyond the propaganda spouted by the Australian and the Economist, and your neoclassical economics textbooks. While you accuse me and others of knowing nothing of economics, it could clearly be said of you that you know nothing of political economy. Your latest post is so naive as to be laughable. The global capitalist economy works as an integrated system. Yes, governments set the frameworks in which corporations act (the same corporations responsible for rampant deforestation, etc - but they are of course driven forward by the profit imperative), but corporations and financial institutions have become so powerful that the democratic process in most countries is a sham, replaced by plutocracy. Governments make important decisions based on the profit interests of corporations. The land-grabbing phenomenon (http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4479-grain-releases-data-set-with-over-400-global-land-grabs) is only the latest in a very long line.

And as for the claim that the global capitalist economy is the saviour of humanity because it continues to lift people out of poverty - it's all relative, and it could all go pear-shaped very quickly. In fact, it has, and it is. Have you forgotten September 2008? In the aftermath of that hundreds of millions were plunged into poverty, and that trend continues today. Have you read anything about Greece recently? Spain? Portugal? Ireland? Guatemala? Mexico? More and more people are sinking into poverty in the US, where average wages have stagnated or gone backwards since 1980. The global capitalist economy is working mainly for the uber-rich, people like Gina Reinhart. If you want to continue to serve as a mouth-piece for them in this forum, be my guest, but don't expect to be taken seriously

.

Dear Poirot & Squeers,

.

Thank you for your kind words. It is comforting to learn that I do not qualify for Mathew Arnold's category of "philistinism" (whatever that may be - it doesn't sound too good).

I didn't qualify as a drover either but there can't be too many of them left these days. Most seem to have been replaced by road train drivers. I guess the young kids have had to adapt their dreams accordingly.

Apparently my childhood dreams have become extinct. I'll probably soon be joining the pterodactyls and brontosauruses singing ghostly, prehistoric choruses.

The Canadian Indian parable, however, as Squeers rightly suggests, is still relevant. Here is an example.

I somewhat shamefully recall participating in a debate on the blog of my French philosopher friend, Michel Onfray, in 2007, when a female debater innocently enquired what effect I thought the American economic depression would have on Europe.

Not having previously heard any suggestion of a looming economic depression in the US, I hurriedly checked all possible sources of economic information on the web and casually replied, in the habitual macho style that characterises me in such circumstances, that the concerns in the US related to the bursting of a real estate bubble which, apparently, was under control. I added that it was not expected to have any major effect on the US economy and that there was absolutely no risk of it affecting Europe.

I was simply repeating what the world's best economists, including all the Nobel prize winners, were saying at the time (cf., the elders of those Canadian Indian tribes).

None of them had seen the antics the financial engineers had been up to, craftily transforming real estate debt into negotiable mortgage-backed securities and stealthily mixing them into a toxic cocktail with other securities so that they could not be detected.

Nor had they seen the final mixture being traded to all the major European banks and financial institutions like snake oil.

We poor "Indians" had no way of knowing that somebody was busy sealing our death warrant several thousand miles "upstream".

.

Beautifully expressed, Banjo Paterson--from pastoral to lament. Most appropriate.

Let me say that I'm very disappointed that this thread has ended the way it has. The troglodites and flat-earthers, non-thinkers to a man and women, seem to have prevailed and genuine thinkers have been thwarted by all manner of ridiculous prevarication and gibberish.

Not much hope for us humans I'm afraid, not while the LCD and their brain-dead supporters hold the reins of power.

Nick, you would also do well to vary your reading beyond the handful of authors on the fringe of economics. Your criticism of conventional economics is like a blind man critiquing a painting he has never seen.

Your arrogance in assuming that your "political economics" (which is basically a cobbled together hodgepodge of conspiracy theories, unsupported polemics from low grade academics, and future fantasy) is intellectually superior to the thousands of man years of research by Phds, Nobel Laureates etc, is delusional.

To claim that thousands of researchers around the world have thrown their academic principles to the wind to generate propaganda is pathetic.

Shadow Minister,
You make an excellent point--when I'm not attacking acadame I'm defending it--and I do find it hard to believe all economists have been seduced by the dark side. Can you please refer me to some of the more thoughtful economists, or their writings; or merely where I might consult their credentials.
My area of expertise is Lit. Crit., so I know no shame.

Seriously. I wish to learn.

.

Dear David G.

.

Don't let it get you down, old mate. Here's something to cheer you up:

.

FRYING PAN'S THEOLOGY

Scene: On Monaro,

Dramatis Personae: Shock-headed blackfellow, Boy (on a pony).

Snowflakes are falling

So gentle and slow,

Youngster says, "Frying Pan,

What makes it snow?"

Frying Pan confident

Makes the reply -

"Shake 'im big flour bag

Up in the sky!"

"What! when there's miles of it!

Sur'ly that's brag.

Who is there strong enough

Shake such a bag?"

"What person tellin' you

Ole Mister Dodd,

Tell you in Sunday-school?

Big feller God!

He drive 'im bullock dray,

Then thunder go,

He shake 'im flour bag -

Tumble down snow!"

.

Squeers,

There are thousands of brilliant economists.

Here are two of the better known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

Squeers,

Here's an insightful round-up examining "Uncle Miltie's" blueprint for a globalised privatised world.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/excerpt

Dear Squeers, thanks for your little poem. It seemed to pass comment upon the people of our world admirably.

Also, it seems to elevate Shadow Minister into a position of being Australia's No 1 Economist. Forget Keynes and notorious others. Shadow is our man. His 'retain the status quo and question nothing' approach will take Australia to the very top in the 'very top' stakes.

Of course, I'm not sure which area Australia will be 'very top' in. Certainly, when it comes to suck-holing to the U.S., we are the best. No one does it like our Julia.

When it comes to sending our troops overseas to die for some other imperial country, we do well as well if you know what I mean.

And when it comes to philosophical discussions Australia is, well, most economists don't know what philosophical means. They think it has to do with stamps! They are too busy studying intricate graphs and applying elaborate formulas which, if the truth is known, they don't understand.

Anyway, the Philistines will always be victorious and people like us, well, we add curious postscripts to things and bury the dead whether it be people or ideas.

David G - you'll appreciate the latest post in this blog: http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/.

The author sees no happy ending. I admit, it's difficult - extremely difficult - to see one. Eisenstein was remarkably confident, though, as indeed are the authors of this book - http://www.brucelipton.com/flipbook/spontaneous-evolution%23/page/7. All of them share a strong sense of teleology, that the Universe has a purpose, that we're all on a big evolutionary journey, that quantum physics shows that (collectively) we can be truly masters of our destiny, that current events are all tending in a positive direction, and so on.

Call them naive, call them utopian - many do, many will. It's hard to see some 'higher purpose' or direction to the human journey - and yet, what is the point of despair? Amidst all the crassness, the cynicism, the cruelty, the barbarity - good and beautiful and true acts still take place all around us, every day. They are worth embracing.

Nic, it would be great if you were to raise this subject again, perhaps not as a review of a book (one which tends to bite off more than it can chew) but as a segment (which can be built upon) which allow the true philosophers and thinkers to discuss and debate but is so specific that it keeps the idiots and the flat-earthers locked into their tiny mental boxes.

To raise the level of philosophy in society is, I think, the only way humans are going to survive the ugly, divided, warring world they have created. We have to get people thinking again (rather than mindlessly regurgitating what they have rote learned) and joining the dots.

I await your contributions with eagerness!

Nick, our comments have crossed each other.

I agree, we are on an evolutionary journey except that humans have already reached the peak point (perhaps it was during Ancient Greece) and are now rapidly regressing back to the stage where our knuckles dragged on the ground and we spoke in grunts!

I am in a 'Stop The World I Want To Get off' state of mind but I keep hanging around hoping against hope that something, someone, will appear and show us the way. I see no evidence of such a person or even a redeeming movement.

Our current crop of leaders were hatched in a cesspool!

Out of 7.5 billion people, surely there is one who is exceptional!

no power so no puter, but have more to asap.
teleoogy is an interesting topic, but "evolutionary journey" is non sequitur.
i'm wary.

Thanks David G. In total agreement regarding the need to raise the level of thinking and debate in society - and the internet is a magnificent tool for this purpose (while at the same time serving of course entirely the opposite agenda).

Re: there is no evidence of a redeemer (in whatever form), I disagree - I think there are positive signs all around, some of which, strange as it may seem, are actually making some headway amongst the powers that be (including, in the case of local and sustainable food systems, the US Dept of Agriculture). If you doubt me, have a look at this - http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_COMPASS. While the USDA's main motivation is economic growth, I have no doubt (and I have spent years researching this) that local food systems and economies do have transformative potential.

Trouble is that such hopeful signs are drowned out amidst all the other noise, sorry, news.

I am happy to keep writing on this topic in the more focused way you suggest, other commitments permitting, though I wonder if OLO would be the best venue, given that it seems to be something of a magnet for trolls, neo-cons and neo-libs of various types, whose abuse and attacks must tend to put off all but the hardiest of posters of a different mind. If you have alternative suggestions I'd be grateful.

Nick, my first blog was titled: The Philosophers Well and I intended it would be place where people of a philosophical bent would exchange ideas.

It went slowly and, thinking it sounded too intellectual I changed it to Seeking Utopia which went gangbusters but didn't seem to be achieving what I had hoped: a serious, thoughtful, mature blog.

My last blog (which is still going more or less} is called Dangerous Creation and is based upon the premise that humans pose the major danger to the planet and will probably go the way of the dinosaurs in the very near future. It's not a message that thrills people.

Perhaps I should return to my first blog and see what it might achieve in these uncertain, worrying times although getting people to think (and not simply regurgitate their rote learning) is an awesome task.

What to do about trolls, egomaniacs, self-agrandizers, time-wasters, fruit loops, fanatics, plants, and dikkheads, etc, is a perennial problem for the writer. It is hard to be courteous sometimes but if what you write appears publically, you take your chances.

I do agree that there seems to be a slight movement towards a more community-based society and even some attempts at forms of rural self-sufficiency.

But I fear the implosion of the capitalist system will swamp everything in due course, either that or a nuclear war.

Take care.

There is certainly some validity in that view, David G.

>>...humans have already reached the peak point (perhaps it was during Ancient Greece) and are now rapidly regressing back to the stage where our knuckles dragged on the ground and we spoke in grunts!<<

Our presence here has always been somewhat anomalous, given the relatively mindless, or instinctual, existence of earth's other inhabitants. Our evolution has however never strayed too far from the fight/flight basics, so it matters little how technologically "advanced" we become, it will never compensate for the feeling, deep down, that unless we grab everything we can get our hands on, we "lose".

Painting a picture of a situation where raw nature does not hold sway over our actions will always be at a disadvantage against reality. Wishful thinking has of course always formed part of our evolved mental make-up - religion being a classic example of this condition - but it will never yield anything useful, bar the occasional warm-and-fuzzy moment of introversion.

Not sure it was the Greeks who were "the peak", though, given that their society was run by a relatively small number of the populace - no women, of course, basically because they weren't really citizens at all - and that they were a people who found slavery to be a perfectly natural human state.

But if it was (and I can't think of a time that overall qualifies as the "high point") then civilization didn't actually get very far at all, did it.

Which makes me puzzle why you expend so much energy railing against the inevitable.

Pericles, thanks for your comment which was perceptive and positive.

I don't know why I bother either quite frankly but something inside me keeps my nose to the grindstone trying to alert the world to the danger it faces unless we radically change the way we live and the current 'values' we hold (or are taught to hold by the manipulative Predators and the Parasites).

Sometimes I think the dominoes are falling and nothing can stop them. I am caught between fight and flight myself (except there is nowhere to run to).

Perhaps Omar had the right idea: many glasses of red wine and thou!

SM, after all this the best you've got is a couple of wikilinks to Keynes and Friedman?
I'm not entirely unlettered in economics and was looking for an economist who wasn't dedicated to the system and recognises it is unsustainable. Did you bother to read the link to the economist I provided above? http://newleftreview.org/II/76/wolfgang-streeck-citizens-as-customers
I doubt it. But you would just dismiss it in any case

Thanks Poirot for the article. Perhaps SM will read and consider it. Fat chance.

David G, I didn't write the poem, Banjo Paterson did.

Squeers,

You asked for the names of some preminent economists and some links to their works, The Wiki links I gave, gives you a very brief summary of Keynes and Friedman, (probably the two most influential and respected economist of the last century), and gives references/links to many of their works. If you want to limit yourself only to "an economist who wasn't dedicated to the system and recognises it is unsustainable", you basically exclude all those that have actually made a contribution and are left with those more interested in political posturing.

I can only lead you to wisdom, I cannot make you think.

SM,

"I can only lead you to wisdom, I cannot make you think."

(Superbly arrogant:)

Think on this:

http://www.ibtimes.com/nouriel-dr-doom-roubini-karl-marx-was-right-841825

It's a finite system.

As someone who has worked hard to derail this thread with your silliness and narrow world view, it really is beyond the pale that you would claim that someone else (who is obviously much brighter than you) can't be made to think.

'Know Thyself' seems to be an appropriate maxim for your condition! A touch of humility wouldn't hurt either.

Well thanks to all for an interesting discussion, and opportunity to mend some bridges.
I too sympathise with Pericles's last--which was the note I first chimed in with. One of the things which maintains hegemony is our endless discussions: idealism. And one thing we have to recognise about capitalism is that it is responsive to critique, indeed it's a chameleon; it will change it's skin colour without changing its essence. This has led to an entire system of thought (cultural materialism) that puts its faith in the "teleological evolution" of political economy (though these are all misnomers; materialism implies no faith and no teleology. It's founder theorised this teleological evolution in purely functionalist terms).
But while I'm pessimistic about our future, I'm not pessimistic about the human spirit or essence, which (is what?) seems to me to develop, or degrade, symbiotically with the prevailing ideology. We should not condemn human nature, but the prevailing system which makes it depraved.
To defend or condemn "human nature" is to subscribe to something centred in the individual--as though God or the Devil had us in his charge. It's nothing so supernatural; we're the puppets of political economy.

.

Dear David G., Poirot & Squeers,

.

David G -

I am pleased you are happy to stay with us a little longer and give the grapes time to ripen ...

.

Poirot -

Thank you for your interesting links ...

.

Squeers -

You note that "materialism implies no faith and no teleology". No teleology, that I understand ... but no faith ?

I think you mean what I call "blind faith". It is difficult to imagine life without faith. Simply placing one foot after the other in order to walk requires faith.

Allow me to submit the following definitions for your consideration:

"Faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both).

"Blind faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

Naturally, as I am sure you will have guessed, I place belief in the supernatural in the category of blind faith.

.

For those who have an hour to spare and wish to use it well, you could do worse than watch this doco: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n1p9P5ee3c, 'Crossroads: Labor Pains of a New Worldview'. It synthesizes very well (in my view) much of the various themes and points of discord revealed in the course of this thread, using the metaphor of 'humanity at a crossroads in our evolutionary journey'.

Those interviewed include the author of 'Spontaneous Evolution', cell biologist Bruce Lipton, plus quantum physicists, psychologists, psychotherapists, authors, doctors and thinkers of various kinds. Notable by their absence are economists - don't say I didn't warn you!

Here's another interesting paper - on the the crises of democratic capitalism:

http://newleftreview.org/II/71/wolfgang-streeck-the-crises-of-democratic-capitalism

Thanks Poirot - a good read and seemingly very gloomy conclusion (which by the way highlights the relevance and insights of political economy):

'Social science can do little, if anything, to help resolve the structural tensions and contradictions underlying the economic and social disorders of the day. What it can do, however, is bring them to light and identify the historical continuities in which present crises can be fully understood. It also can—and must—point out the drama of democratic states being turned into debt-collecting agencies on behalf of a global oligarchy of investors, compared to which C. Wright Mills’s ‘power elite’ appears a shining example of liberal pluralism. [22] More than ever, economic power seems today to have become political power, while citizens appear to be almost entirely stripped of their democratic defences and their capacity to impress upon the political economy interests and demands that are incommensurable with those of capital owners. In fact, looking back at the democratic-capitalist crisis sequence since the 1970s, there seems a real possibility of a new, if temporary, settlement of social conflict in advanced capitalism, this time entirely in favour of the propertied classes now firmly entrenched in their politically unassailable stronghold, the international financial industry.'

The key word in that last sentence may however be 'temporary'. We're in a period of rapid - very rapid - change. As the author points out earlier in the article, reconciling the requirements of finance capital and global markets for, on the one hand, austerity and fiscal consolidation and, on the other, steady and increasing economic growth, is looking more and more like one of those thorny 'contradictions'...

DG & Poirot,

It would appear that my play on words is above your capability to comprehend. The wisdom is not mine but from two of the greatest thinkers of the modern age, one of whom is a Nobel Laureate. If you are too narrow minded to consider their ideas, then indeed I cannot make you think.

DG, your arrogance and narrow mindedness in this thread are breath taking. Of the two of us, I appear the only one to make the effort to read more than one point of view. I strongly suggest you take the plank out of your eye first. (biblical metaphor for the uneducated)

SM,

Obviously the supposed "wisdom", to which you were endeavouring to lead Squeers, wasn't yours.

We already knew that...

Have only just got my power back, so sorry for tardy responses.

It's a fascinating area, Banjo and I'm with you. I have faith, or at least I suspect, there is something more to our reality than stupid materialism. My suspicions are based on personal experience as well as "circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both)". Though I've never taken my suspicions to the next level: cleaving to or inventing a belief system to account for them. Reductive materialism is a kind of negative faith, since it forecloses not merely on supernatural possibilities (which might seem excusable), but also on possibilities such as one form or another of dualism. It seems to me our perspective on reality is so limited, preconditioned and altogether dubious that we're in no position to foreclose on anything, at least in philosophical, cultural or political terms.
The way the empirical sciences proceed seems eminently defensible, since discoveries have a proven track record, but the danger is in translating materialist production from a realist paradigm into universal law: in reducing all reality to realist terms. Realism is a hypothetical construct, ultimately without foundation. Though it work for practical purposes, its productions are derivative and bounded by and limited to that spectrum of possibility. More importantly a), realism "as reality" demeans humanity to its base essence and b) its productions remain politically and culturally over-determined. To my mind idealism is vitally important and realism ought to be tempered by it, rather than the other way around.
Not sure if that's of any use.

Now that I have my computer back, I'll have a look at the link, Nick Rose, but in my view the realist paradigm is firmly entrenched and change will occur in a brutally realist mode, rather than via social processes.

Squeers, insofar as changes occur in human institutions (political, economic, cultural etc.), then the change will be social, even if the drivers are apparently external, e.g. climate change, resource scarcity. I take your meaning to be that change will be forced on us in an unpleasant way rather than managed through constructive and non-violent processes. I agree that the odds look to be in favour of the former, but I don't discount the latter because I see it happening now in ways both small and (in some places) large.

I really would commend the Crossroads doco to you as it does shed some light on the 'realism vs idealism' question. The insights of quantum physics are also highly relevant, regarding the 'scientifically-demonstrated' capacity of 'invisible forces' (i.e. energy fields) to impact on 'physical matter' - and indeed to question the very nature of that matter. If you want to delve further, I'd recommend Spontaneous Evolution - http://www.brucelipton.com/flipbook/spontaneous-evolution%23/page/7#/page/1 - which has much to say on the paradigms of scientific reductionism, Newtownian phyics, Darwinian genetic determinism, etc. A good read.

Nick,
have watched half the show and very good--especially since it validates everything I've been arguing on OLO for the last few years--shall watch the rest later.
On your comment; I'm not pessimistic for the sake of it. The human juggernaut has only reached this terrific and precarious dominance of the world via the capitalist mode of production, and only capitalism can maintain it--at least until it goes over the cliff. To attempt to dismantle the capitalist mode of production, with nearly 7 billion dependent upon it, for mine can only mean decimation, at least. That's supposing it was even possible; which would take the concerted efforts and good will of at least a large coalition of powerful countries, which would preside over a completely different way of life, while protecting the "ark" from recalcitrant aggressors. Much easier for powerful nations/coalitions/political orders to follow their realist/pragmatic logic and jockey for position in the aftermath of a major collapse.
We've seen the optimistic version before during the 60's and via the writings of Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm et al; inspirational, idealistic stuff that came to naught. During the whole period of cultural optimism and its various manifestations, including identity politics and the Green movement, neoliberalism has gone from strength to strength. Idealism has had no effect on the capitalist juggernaut, except to make it stronger. "It" got the fright of its life in the leadup to WW1 and as a result, as I said above, it has been responsive to critique (what we call democracy). But all its concessions have been idealistic/institutional (matters of indifference to it), while the material reality has gained ever greater ascendency.

I'll let you know if the film changes my mind.

What kind of system sanctions this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/goldman-bankers-get-rich-betting-on-food-prices-as-millions-starve-8459207.html

Squeers

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I agree that capitalism has produced (most of) 7 billion humans, but that doesn't mean we'll all perish if the system itself ends or is transformed. Food can be produced for large numbers other than on vast industrial monocultures, for example. Have a look at this PhD on the way Russia's population fed itself when the Soviet system collapsed: www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010177.sharashkin.pdf.

And it's worth remembering that capitalism doesn't entirely determine the life conditions of everyone, everywhere.

Powerful countries as they are presently politically structured clearly won't embark on transforming capitalism, for the reasons discussed in Streeck's article. But changes are possible in the power formations within countries, and through democratic means, e.g.Venezuela, ruled by a pro-neoliberal oligarchy for decades, elected Chavez in 1998. Whatever else you might say or think of him, he's no neoliberal, and he's been very popular amongst a strong majority of Venezuelans for the past 15 years. Similar processes have taken place in Ecuador and Bolivia.

Look forward to your further thoughts when you finish the doco, and in the meantime here's another book that looks like a good read: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/book-of-the-day-why-small-scale-alternatives-wont-change-the-world/2013/01/29

.

Dear Squeers,

.

You certainly covered a lot of ground in your last post. I am not as nimble as I used to be and am afraid you have left me way behind.

My concept of plain, ordinary faith is fairly basic compared to yours which strikes me as much more high-tech.

I see faith as something quite simple like confidence or trust, an essential feature of life, an instinct. Without faith the young fledgling would never dare break open the egg and venture into the world. The scientist could make no progress.

During my professional life I became familiar with the expression " uberrima fides", utmost good faith, a legal doctrine whereby all parties to an insurance contract must deal in good faith.

The opposing legal doctrine is "caveat emptor", let the buyer beware, the basis of all other contracts.

Not surprisingly, many of the convictions expressed on this Online Opinion forum are faith based rather than fact based.

I wonder to what extent your flight to faith (as you conceive it) is not due to the fact that materialism is tainted by its vernacular sense of disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, and cultural values, assimilating it to philistinism (my home turf).

Materialism in this sense is far too reductionist and a distortion of the original sense of the term which I understand derived from mother.

The untainted, should I say, less pejorative, version of materialism is simply the recognition that " the physical world is all that exists ". In this version the mind, thoughts, ideas and sensorial perceptions are all part of the physical world. I see no reason for materialism to exclude interest in intellectual or cultural pursuits, or even the aspiration of a reality surpassing normal (state of the art) human understanding or experience.

I see no reason why dreams should not be as much a reality for materialists as for spiritualists. Both have a psyche and are equally capable of symbolisation and imagination.

"What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. What is the soul? That is immaterial".

.

It's sad really, the way this thread has ended up in a dry, intellectual and spiritual gulch.

And while we have been discussing things, those who run the world, the billionaires, politicians and corporations, assisted by the likes of SM, have been entrenching themselves even more.

The Parasites and Predators who run this world know that academic discussions inevitably end up in a dead end and intellectuals end up playing word games and semantic naughts and crosses.

I suppose that's why Professors are not running the world and why people like Eisenstein become marginalized!

David G,

I suppose it all stems from the fact that homo sapiens, for all his intellectual and ideological rigor, is an avaricious and belligerent species who likes to amass "stuff".

The more stuff he collects, the more his ego is satiated - the more he considers his efforts a "success".

That's what capitalism satisfies - and it's very difficult to rationally override such a penchant.

It's only the arrival at a tipping point that will rein him in.

Poirot, you said, "...for all his intellectual and ideological rigor,..." Did you not mean rigor mortis?

Be assured I agree with the thrust of your comment. :)

Poirot,

The independent is one of those silly fringe blogs that produce articles that deliberately misrepresent things to get attention. Headlines such as "Goldman bankers get rich betting on food prices as millions starve" are pure rubbish.

Farmers, Miners etc, in order to raise cash sell future production of food/minerals at close to expected future prices to purchase seed, equipment etc to produce the food/minerals. If the food price goes up, the financiers make more money, if it goes down they lose it, abd the farmer/miner makes a guaranteed profit. Without this financing, there would be less food produced, higher food prices and more people starving. The article could also be expanded to Nasty insurance companies betting on us dying, or our houses burning down.

This is apparent to those with an education. These articles appeal to the ignorant and narrow minded who appear to be in abundance in this thread.

Thanks for that, SM : )

Btw...your latest elucidation on the merits of your fellow posters is fascinating.....as in:

"This is apparent to those with an education. These articles appeal to the ignorant and narrow minded who appear to be in abundance on this thread."

Strangely enough, your hypocrisy is shining like a beacon.

Remember this from you a few pages back to DG?

"...your propensity to dish out insults whenever someone disagrees with you is crass and vulgar."

Still, I suppose you make an exception when the poster being "crass and vulgar" is yourself : )

(P.S. regarding seed purchases...yup, you need money these days in places like India to purchase your seed or your fertilizer - in fact, debt is the name of the game these days. No more seed saving and sharing since Cargills and Monsanto got in on the act)

Banjo Paterson,
I'm not sure I'd call it my "flight to faith". I have good reason to suspect there is more to our unfolding reality than meets the eye. That is all. My suspicions are more in the nature of a curiosity to me--which might even be relevant to our collective situation, but I suspect equally I'm never going to have my curiosity satisfied and I'm content to think about the here and now in my own way--and not according to the rubric we are all conditioned in. If my "faith" is more "hi-tech" than yours, then I hope that's merely my recognition of complexity--a complexity denied by materialists. I would question your "simple" idea of "faith"; a chick breaking the shell is not an act of faith, for instance. Or at least consciousness, idealism, anxiety etc. bespeak an infinitely more intentional state than a rudimentary instinct.
Perhaps you don't realise that my use of Arnold's philistinism etc. was firmly tongue-in-cheek, as his own world view is today dismissed as elitism. If it were not for my well-founded suspicions I'd perhaps be the world's foremost materialist. I have no fear of nihilism and have not retreated to "spiritual, intellectual, and cultural values", which I find highly dubious and generally corrupt.
You call it a "recognition" that "the physical world [universe] is all that exists". But in what sense is this a "recognition"? As if we "knew".
Quite apart from my well-founded "suspicions", I've also been researching consciousness, and increasingly the consensus has it that it "cannot" be accounted for in reductive materialist terms--indeed that materialism is itself based on "faith"!
I agree with your final play on words, however that the problem is how to convert mind/spirit into action..

And on that, Nick, I have little to add, except to say that the world has evolved by means of collapse hitherto. All our lives are precarious and what of it if we die en masse, rather than by happenstance? I suspect it will take such an event to inspire the survivors, rather than a spontaneous change of consciousness.

Can you believe it? 135 comments and we have reached no conclusion about anything and we have not adopted any course of action.

Many of the comments were well-crafted, took a lot of time, but all that human endeavor has achieved nothing.

Eisenstein put some ideas forth as a basis of discussion but futile jawboning was the only result.

The flat-earthers won the day, them and the brain-dead.

Makes you wonder whether or not a dash of comment moderation by the author of the post should be employed in order to keep a serious and important thread moving in a positive direction.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Many thanks for your explanations and clarifications.

Though I see no justification, based on current available evidence, to support the idea that there exists anything other than the material world, I see no reason why you or I or anybody else, including the so-called materialists, should not admit the possibility that there may be "more to our unfolding reality than meets the eye", as you suggest.

Of course, admitting that possibility is not a belief. Nor does it require faith, confidence or trust in order to be admitted. It simply requires a lack of prejudice and an open mind. But under no pretext should possibility be confused with probability.

I have the impression that there are numerous scientists in a multitude of disciplines tracking the origins and development of life in all its aspects and I expect they will come up with all sorts of surprising discoveries and revolutionary theories as time goes by.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, materialists, like atheists, are all too often unjustly stigmatised by those who place their faith in the occult despite lack of evidence of the existence of any such thing.

To answer your question, I consider we all know that "the physical world [universe] is all that exists" but most of us repress the obvious under the influence of powerful psychological and social pressures suffered from birth. Some individuals manage to resist these forces as they gain in maturity, seeking and obtaining confirmation of what they had previously been obliged to repress.

In this sense they acquire "recognition" of what they always new but had been obliged to repress, deny or ignore.

For want of a better explanation I see faith as an instinct of survival of all living creatures, strong at birth and diminishing as the individual gains in autonomy which, in my vocabulary, is another word for free will.

Perhaps a few words on conscience and consciousness in my next post ...

.

Not sure who you're having a go at, David G, everyone it seems.
The sad conclusion of my contributions is that Eisenstein's ideas amount to "futile jawboning". Idealism cuts no mustard in this world unless it achieves hegemony. Hegemony is subject to manipulation, as maintainance, and change tends to be a glacially slow process that's only idealistic in any case--nothing changes materially. That's why Marx and Engels insisted capitalism had to be overthrown. Even then it had to be ripe for revolution; a mode of production increasingly at odds with the social relations of production, so that hegemony fell by common consent and the capitalists were removed as readily as a tyrant king. Marx's fatal mistake was thinking that that point was imminent; he thus proselytised future generations of Marxists in the perennially sterile hope that the time was nigh. The time may well remain nigh, but we'll have used up planet Earth long before we get there. As Nick's youtube flick shows, the Earth is self-regulating and it will act to counter humanity as the latest geological imbalance.

For once I can take pride in the fact that my every comment here has been to the point.
What are your recommendations? How do we turn Eisenstein's idealistic vision into action?
It's a lot of useless jawboning that will achieve nothing bar allow a few naive optimists to feel good about themselves. They're the obverse of the (neoliberal) rational optimists.
If you can explain the error in my reasoning I'd love to hear it.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Conscience has to do with awareness of what is at stake from a moral point of view, discerning right from wrong. It has a religious connotation. There is no right or wrong in nature. There is only what is most efficient for survival and development.

The faculty nature has endowed us with is not conscience in the moral or religious sense but in the sense of consciousness, the awareness of reality and of what is most efficient, not just for our own survival and development but for that of the whole species of which we are a member.

The degree of consciousness of some individuals appears to be particularly limited as illustrated by their behaviour: an irate mother who shakes her baby so violently that she inadvertently kills it; somebody who flicks a burning cigarette out the window of a car while driving on a forest road; nightclub proprietors who padlock fire-escape exists to prevent people entering without paying ... Many people live their lives dangerously without realizing it.

As you probably know, the last book published by Darwin just before he died was on earthworms. It seems he began studying them as a boy and continued to do so, off and on, over a period of forty years. He observed that they have a well developed sense of consciousness, capable of identifying and choosing various types of leaves, etc., etc.,.

He submitted them to various tests and concluded that worms, although standing low in the scale of organisation, possess “some degree of intelligence instead of a mere blind instinctive impulse”.

It was the French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, who first suggested in 1893 that societies dispose of a common or collective conscience as a distinguishing factor similar to that of culture.

Carl Jung extended the concept in 1919 to what he called the collective unconscious.

I am tempted to extend it to include "collective free will" in order to designate the autonomy of societies to make their own collective decisions without any outside influence or interference.

.

Dear Squeers, in the 135 comments were some of mine.

Needless to say, I included myself in the failure to achieve any real conclusions or any semblance of an action plan.

What was important was not particular personal failures but the failure of the group as a whole to rise to the task presented by Nick.

Banjo Paterson,
you seem much more confident in your worldview and your grasp of complicated philosophical issues than I am--and how did we get on to "conscience"?
The idea of consciousness as conscience is interesting, though I don't see how we can infer one from the other. And Durkheim, being a sociologist, would tend to put the bad mother's, and bad behaviour generally down to social influences.
I read a lot of Jung when I was young and idealistic, but am having trouble with your segways from worms to the collective unconscious to collective free will. You haven't had one too many glasses off red?
Societies have no free will unless they choose to exercise it; and I've always been fond of the stricture that free will means acting "against" one's natural inclination. As it is, collective free will remains enthrall to the capitalist rubric. Once it was religious ritual; now it's ritual consumption.
But really, I'm not sure what point you're making--and I sympathise that it's hard to expound difficult subjects via this pithy medium.
What you're espousing are inductions and they may be astute, but there's a big difference between rationalising reality and resolving it. From my reading on the subject, consciousness so far refuses to yield to our rationalisations--which doesn't mean, however, that we all have to go back to sack-cloth and idol-worship.
Meanwhile, materialism requires more than a modicum of faith--both in our senses and in the sense we make of them. Do you really think either is felicitous or objective?
The one thing we can be sure of is that they're compromised from the outset.
For the materialist, why should our cogitations be any more abstract or sophisticated than Darwin's worms?

David G,
it is a frustrating business and I take no pleasure in being the spoiler. I would adopt Eisentein's lifestyle today. I'm looking for ways to defend idealism for my dissertation (and peace of mind), but it seems to me idealism is no more useful than Nero playing his fiddle.

Squeers, glasses of red, now that's the answer. All the rest is vain-glorious posturing by intellectually puny humans.

Only humans can turn that which is simple into something incredibly complex and unfathomable.

We are born, some of us procreate, we grow old, and most of us die miserable deaths. That is our story, same as every other life form. The story repeats endlessly.

Our ego and conceit and arrogance tries to trick us, tries to tell us that we are superior, almost gods.

We are not! We are little more than a swollen plague of brutal, violent, greedy beasts.

At least when Nero played the fiddle, he was engaging in something creative. And the burning of Rome brought cleansing!

The U.S. will burn one day. The smoke will be jet black!

Cheers.

.

Eisenstein's Sacred Economics

.

Despite Nick's kind invitation, I'm afraid I have no inclination to read the full text of "Sacred Economics". I shall satisfy myself with his book review. I am sure he has treated all major issues.

Eisenstein is what the French call a "doux rêveur" (a gentle dreamer), which speaks for itself.

The inconvenience, of course, is that dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Franco etc. are particularly avid of revolutionary ideas which may serve as a power base for imposing their authority.

As Eisenstein reminds us, Milton Friedman pointed out that economic crisis is a particularly fertile terrain for sowing the seeds of political change. He quotes Friedman as saying:

" Our basic function [as intellectuals] is to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable".

That does, indeed, sound familiar.

The list of dictators in modern times is long (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator#List_of_dictators_in_modern_times) though incomplete and awaiting future additions.

The tragic case of Salvador Allende, the president of Chile, also comes to mind. He was the first Marxist to become president of a Latin American country through open elections and by no means a dictator like Stalin or even Pinochet who succeeded him to the presidency.

Gentle dreamers certainly have an important role to play in opening our eyes to alternative concepts but the cure they prescribe for severe economic illness can prove quite lethal when it falls into the merciless hands of ruthless dictators.

Nick tells us that the author, himself, admits that many of his arguments and proposals will seem naïve, utopian and hopelessly idealistic.

Unfortunately, like all gentle dreamers, he is apparently completely oblivious to their possible tragic consequences for humanity.

.

Banjo,

Well summed up.

Well, there you have it. Eisenstein has been dismissed as a gentle dreamer and all his ideas have been thrown into the trash can.

Meanwhile, our world, which is filled with, and run by, those who love killing and endless war, who love dominating, who love controlling, who love exploiting and manipulating the masses, continue to have a field day invading and occupying and plundering while they live lives of obscene affluence while much of the world's people starve or live in poverty.

Yes, such psychopathic types in a 'capitalist-democratic' system end up very rich and very powerful and it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that such people are leading the world towards a nuclear Armageddon as Empires clash.

But let's not worry about that either, eh, Banjo and the do-nothing cliche who love to posture and debate as long as they don't have to do anything?

When the nukes start falling we'll suddenly have all manner of Chicken-Littles rushing about in alarm making shrieking noises. The same thing occurred in Nazi Germany when Hitler began his war against the world and it will happen again when the U.S. makes its grab for world domination.

Anyway, so be it! Humans, who are collectively dumb as a thumb, deserve all they get!

This, from page 4, was overlooked/ignored/unanswerable and is resubmitted for consideration...

"Here's a suggestion which might help, David G...

Since your comment that

"And if honesty, compassion and generosity again became values that people embraced,..."

implies - by saying *again* - you know something about human history which isn't apparent to the rest of us, perhaps you could tell us where and when this nirvana existed - and maybe what happened to the people concerned?

Couldn't hurt the discussion."

[Posted Thursday, 17 January 2013 9:46:43 AM]

We know through repitition what your complaints are -- but haven't heard how you would implement Eisenstein's gentle dreams.

Banjo,

Aka Jung, a synchronicity has occurred. My bi-monthly copy of The London Review of Books arrived yesterday and lo and behold contains a book review of Thomas Nagel's, "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost certainly False".
It deals with the hard problem of consciousness, which remains unresolved, and Nagel postulates what he calls "neutral monism" to account not merely for it but for the apparent spontaneity of consciousness in nature generally--think Darwin's worms! The idea is that mental and physical properties are manifestations of something more basic. This is not dualism, neither property can be reduced to one or the other, and both are speculated to be teleologically driven. Nagel apparently also makes the claim that "moral values are objectively real"!
The reviewer is somewhat critical, and I must say I'm sceptical. But Nagel is a respected philosopher of mind and I'll have to acquire the book.

In your last post you seem to draw back abruptly into a conservative shell. And conservative idealism tends to take forms like nationalism, elitism, racism, inequality, intolerance and broad-scale indifference. In Marx's defence let me say that idealism of any kind was his abhorrence. He was a true materialist and was fighting against our ideological (and actual) enslavement, and not in pursuit of utopia. Since a true materialist dismisses idealism and even consciousness altogether, he is forced to postulate that human society evolves either randomly (which is belied by history) or via some other fact of its collective strategy. For Marx this was the mode of production--which was/is inherently unsustainable. It is surely this, or some variation on the theme, that supervenes over idealism and drives our expansion without let. We are not in control of our runaway development, but subject to it.
Though idealism is still a factor by attrition, as more and more of the human race, which never had it so good, succumbs to "mental illness". This isn't like the biological spread of facial tumours in Devils, it's an ideological disease, born of a pathological materialism we're coerced from birth to partake of.

Of course you realise that by "pathological materialism" I mean the vulgar materialism--indulgence, sloth, consumption etc., and not that we're coerced into a philosophically materialist world-view. We're all materialists now, from evangelists on the take to intellectuals to idealists.

WmTrevor, thanks for your comment. Let me make the following points:

- Humans are capable, given the right nurturing, of living many different ways. History is replete with information about different civilizations and tribal groups.
- Humans, if their minds were freed from the capitalist idea that greed is good and making so much money that you can’t spend it is a worthy goal, could become entirely different creatures.
- Humans, if they were, from birth, taught that all war is evil and that those who engage in it are psychotic barbarians, would adopt a different, more peaceful mindset.
- If humans were taught that giving is a virtue and being rich is a crime against humanity then avarice would disappear.
- If humans were shown that spending 20 years being ‘educated’ for a job then spending 50 years working your guts out so that an employer or corporation could be obscenely rich was a gross waste of human potential and human life, most people might spend their lives differently.
- If humans returned to living in small, semi-rural communities, their tribal instincts would be satisfied whereas living in cities is stressful. Their identification with nature and reverence for their planet would also be enhanced.
- If human were encouraged to pursue artistic pursuits such as writing, art, sculpture, carving, playing musical instruments, composing music, reading the great books, etc, and dumped television altogether their lives would be immeasurably enriched.
- If humans were taught philosophy from a very early age they would question everything and not be so easily manipulated.
- If humans engaged in physical work they would be more healthy and less stressed.
- If humans identified with nature and elements of spirituality (but not religion) they would spend a few hours each day meditating or in reflection which would lead to less stress.

These are just a few thoughts but the bottom line is that humans can become whatever they want to be. We just need to join together to get rid of the Monied Masters then change the current human stereotype!

.

Dear David G,

.

I sympathise with you but I think you will agree that it is better to look before leaping. No sense jumping from the frying pan into the fire. That can hardly be a wise move.

Please don't think that I wish to dissuade you or anybody else for that matter from reading "Sacred Economics", and even studying it carefully. That is a personal decision.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Eisenstein means well and that his intentions are perfectly noble.

I think Nick has summed up the problem quite well:

"My main difficulty with this book is that it glosses over the concrete struggles that will be required to bring about any of the redistributive macro-economic proposals discussed, let alone all of them. Powerful and ruling classes have never at any time willingly ceded their wealth, privilege and status, and there is little reason to expect them to do so now. This is a book mapping out a post-capitalist economy, but it lacks a post-capitalist politics. How we actually get from here to there is the chapter yet to be written ...".

Eisenstein did not finish the job. But as he is intelligent and highly educated there can be little doubt he knew the task was impossible.

Whichever way you tackle the problem the end result is the same: check and mate.

The end game, as I see it, offers four possibilities:

1. Impossible to implement the ideas by democratic means
2. Forceful implementation of the ideas by dictatorship
3. Decide not to publish the book in its present form
4. Write another book with ideas which are possible to implement by democratic means

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that Eisenstein is supposedly talking seriously about the world economy. If he is not then there is no need for us to take him seriously.

Whatever the case, I personally consider there are more effective ways of combating the deviations, abuses and excesses of financial capitalism than reading Eisenstein's book.

.

"Whatever the case, I personally consider there are more effective ways of combating the deviations, abuses and excesses of financial capitalism than reading Eisenstein's book," says Banjo. What are these effective ways? Please share them with us!

The chapter yet to be written involves a modern version of the French Revolution. France, back then, had corrupt Royalty who needed to be sent packing. We have corrupt corporations and politicians and media who also need to be 'vanished'.

But to achieve this, humans need to be exposed to a new vision, given a new hope, something that replaces the bleakness of the capitalist world and its greed-driven, power-hungry, endless-war ethos!

Human must change or perish. It's simple really.

Problem is, David G...that the French peasants were living in hovels and eating dung for breakfast.

The stroke of genius in the present system is for Western proles, at least, to live like Kings (even though they're tethered like drones to the system)

Poirot, give the uncertainty surrounding the future of the capitalist system, people across the world might, one day, become carbon copies of the French proles prior to the famous Revolution!

The plutocrats and oligarchs are trying desperately to get the world economy moving again but it seems to be semi-conscious, perhaps even close to death. Soon they'll be handing out thousand dollar bills on street corners and urging people to 'shop till they pop'.

We live in uncertain times!

P.S. I am finding this 'you can't post for three hours' nonsense hard to take. Talk about stifling debate!

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"You seem much more confident in your worldview and your grasp of complicated philosophical issues than I am ..."

Michelangelo spent his lifetime liberating mythical personalities imprisoned in blocks of Carrara marble extracted from a quarry about a hundred kilometers north-west of Florence.

I have spent mine dissipating heavy clouds of doubt that constantly envelope my world views on almost every issue I can think of.

There came a time when Michelangelo finally put down his chisel and hammer, considering his work was finished.

There comes a time when I consider it is no longer reasonable to continue to doubt, and that I can see sufficiently clear on a specific issue in order to take a stance - and assume the consequences, come what may.

That does not oblige me to ignore any future insights. Like the scientists, I only hold a position firmly "until a better explanation becomes available".

.

Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos":

I share Nagel's and your interests and interrogations on most of the subjects treated in Nagel's latest book as in his previous books.

I have never succeeded in identifying and examining my own mind employing my thought process as the only tool. I doubt that he has either.

The value of his input is necessarily limited to challenging traditional thought patterns.

A multidisciplinary approach including chemists, physicists, biologists, philosophers and others is probably the best way forward.

.

" You seem to draw back abruptly into a conservative shell".

I am viscerally attached to freedom - not just mine, but everybody's. For that reason I reject all forms of categorisation.

I claim the right to agree with Hitler, Stalin, Marx, Che Guevara, Ronald Reagan, or Cardinal Pell, ..., if I happen to share their views on some particular subject.

If you saw me in a "conservative shell" it must have been for some very good reason - which I cannot recall.

.

Banjo Paterson,
I appear to have given offence/reached the limits of opinion--which can look like wisdom when it's eloquently supported, or given encyclopaedic breadth--the hallmark of the dilettante, I'm sorry.
It's perfectly reasonable to continue to doubt; indeed it's unreasonable not to: most of OLO is unreasonable.
In any case do you really think you can see sufficiently clearly on the specific issue of consciousness, say, to take a stance? How much reading have you done on the subject? You pursued the topic here, yet we haven't discussed specific objections to materialism in any detail. I've merely been at pains to show that there's much more to know and plenty to doubt. Holding "a position firmly "until a better explanation becomes available" sounds reasonable but tends to ossify thereafter rather than bend.
You say you've "never succeeded in identifying and examining my own mind employing my thought process as the only tool". Yet is not this an item of "faith" for you? But how hard have you tried? Have you studied phenomenology, for instance?
Your last paragraph sounds like a manifesto, but it doesn't bear scrutiny. How do you define "freedom"? Have you ever experienced it?
"I reject all forms of categorisation" sounds impressive, but these are hypothetically-imposed "method", to give a distinguishable semblance of order to intellectual chaos and prevent a fall into dilettantism.
"...if I happen to share their views on some particular subject".
What is the "I" that's prepared to share? Whence comes its motley of opinion, and by what means? You make a strong case for a unity of consciousness materialism can't account for!
I meant a conservative shell of opinion (I apologise if I seemed to suggest you were any of those other epithets); notice how you've steadfastly resisted, above, what I've urged as mere possibility.
Opinion is always arbitrary and ignorance should be cherished.
But please treat all of the above as rhetorical, directed at all, indeed as a reproof to the rest of us; you're probably the least opinionated voice on OLO, and certainly one of the pleasantist.

.

Dear David G,

.

"Whatever the case, I personally consider there are more effective ways of combating the deviations, abuses and excesses of financial capitalism than reading Eisenstein's book," says Banjo. What are these effective ways? Please share them with us!

The economy is global. The solution will necessarily be global.

For the solution to be global there will have to be cooperation among the major nations, not all of which are democratic. That can only be accomplished by international diplomacy at government level, spearheaded by at least one of the world's political and economic heavyweights.

Any decision to establish common rules and control measures in order to combat the deviations, abuses and excesses of financial capitalism will necessarily be political.

Getting this off the ground is a major challenge. Somebody has to have the motivation and political punch and will to pick it up and run with it. Somebody like Barak Obama, Angela Merkel or François Hollande, or a combination of those three.

I doubt the UN's Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), would have the credibility or the authority to conduct a mission of this nature and importance.

Once a political agreement of principle will have been reached, a task force of competent economists and policy makers representing the interests of the potential major signatories to the agreement would need to be set up in order to elaborate the mechanics of the rules and control measures to be implemented.

On completion of its mission, the task force would need to submit its findings and recommendations to the potential political signatories to the agreement for acceptation.

A process of ratification would then need to be instigated by each of the signatory nations in accordance with its statutory law in order for the terms of the final agreement to be integrated into its domestic legislation and put to execution.

A major political project of this nature would be no less than a revolution, albeit a peaceful one.

.

Squeers,

Conservatism (preserving society with responsibility)shouldn't be a dirty word. Have you ever heard of progressive conservatism, ie. Classic Liberalism? That is what I'm into. All the leftie idealisms have failed.

DavidG,

That's why medieval times were more humane than it is today where we have become slaves to the corporates. Making us work our asses off with the Protestant work ethic, and deterring us from being creative. This is what J. R. R. Tolkien was on about.

There is a great book called "How to be Free" by Tom Hodgkinson who greatly admires the medieval period in Europe.

"Humans are capable, given the right nurturing, of living many different ways. History is replete with information about different civilizations and tribal groups." Is demonstrably true, David G…

There also seems to be something, consistently true in all such permutations – ever since one of our ancestors thought he didn't get his fair share of the mammoth his clan had just killed – which is an innate human propensity to acquire and maintain power over and superiority to others in our tribe.

Since prehistory this has been expressed physically, emotionally, materially, religiously, intellectually, financially and in every other possible way and combination.

This doesn't even have to be intrinsically bad – you don't have to be a tyrant or a dictator to think you're protecting the weak – but it does involve knowing and feeling, as well as having the capacity to enforce, your superiority of power over others.

All that changes in civilisations and tribal groups throughout history is the manner in which this is shared or expressed or lasts – tribes in New Guinea in the Amazon still have chiefs, feuds, wars and those who do the drudgery.

No one ever died wishing they'd spent more time at the office – or hunting bush meat with a bow and arrow or digging up root vegetables and grubs with a sharpened stick.

David. G,

Perhaps you'd like to get a hold of this book by Lewis Hyde - I'm sure you'd find it worthwhile. (I have it around here somewhere, and this discussion has spurred me into hunting it down and having another read)

http://www.lewishyde.com/publications/the-gift

(Btw, Squeers, I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on this thread :)

Constance,
I would love to be a conservative, and i think I am by nature, in fact we all are. But what do you mean by "preserving society with responsibility"?
If our society was sustainable/renewable and ethically defensible, I would want to preserve it. But my whole point is that it's nothing of the kind; it's profligate, destructive and morally bankrupt, such that the conservative Matthew Arnold wanted none of it, even at that early stage in its development.
In any case, classic liberalism has been hijacked by economic fundamentalism.
Edmund Burke was a classic liberal and condemned democratic liberalism?

Can you clarify any of this?

Thanks Poirot.

160 comments now and what more has been achieved?

What has Eisenstein's book brought to the table?

Does the world need radical change?

Are we poised on the edge of nuclear extinction?

Is capitalism a destructive system, one that brings human behaviour down to the LCD?

Is war something that is part of the human DNA or merely a brutal tactic employed by the insatiably greedy and powerful?

Could humans become peaceful and caring like most Buddhists are or will psychopaths and warmongers always lead us?

If humans became extinct, would it really matter?

Is indoctrination, once it's established, impossible to reduce or neutralize?

Do humans have an unconscious death wish?

Do humans really think or do they simply think that they think (surely our chaotic world demonstrates a total lack of real thought as well as a complete lack of maturity - surely the fact that we have reached the stage where we can completely destroy our planet tells us what manner of deranged and destructive creatures most humans are)?

Have a nice day!

.

Dear David G

.

"What has Eisenstein's book brought to the table?"

Though I know it's a bit naughty, I can't resist giving you an honest reply from the bottom of my heart ...

It brings me joy to think that the primary school education I received in the Queensland bush shapes up quite nicely compared to the Yale graduate education of Eisenstein and his subsequent Chinese education in Taiwan.

Another thought which runs through my mind is that if it was I who had written that book instead of Eisenstein, there is no way anyone would ever accept to publish it.

Rightly or wrongly, I conclude that the true value of being a Yale graduate is that it provides access to the exclusive elite of a privileged class.

To think that I have been living under an illusion all these years ...

I have, at last, understood the payback of voluntary academic brainwashing.

Thank you, Mr Eisenstein, you have opened my eyes.

I hope it's not too late at my ripe old age to carry on to high school or whatever they call it these days.

.

All too true, Banjo. There is an academic class along with the monied classes, the political classes, the royal classes, etc,. Each class jealously preserves its own territory and, in most cases, has its own language and social norms.

Back to school for you, my fine fellow, and show them your academic potential.

Alternately, put together an account of your life history in your own words and don't try to emulate the academic jargon which permeates many of the comments on this thread.

People respond to simple honesty and what is even more important, they actually understand it. Some of the offerings on this thread are virtually unintelligible although don't tell anyone I said so.

Poor Eisenstein got buried on this thread, one way or another.

He deserved far better!

David G,
I'm sorry if some of the above is "virtually unintelligible" (which bits precisely?). I for one am always at pains to avoid jargon and write as lucidly as possible. Unfortunately not everything can be reduced to common idioms and understanding means an effort to transcend them has to be made.
As Banjo Paterson knows, I left school at fourteen as well, only coming to academia late after decades as a blue-collar worker. Like Banjo I'm self-educated. I'm not of the "academic class" (a nonsense anyway) and certainly not of the "monied classes"!
I hope to publish my research one day, which is very much to the purpose, and and even on OLO, in my small way I like to think I am making a real contribution towards the dispiriting process of changing consciousness sufficiently to break hegemony. I am not paid by the way to spend hours earnestly addressing threads like this one, only to be insulted and dismissed by scathing, albeit silly, rebukes such as yours.
What are you doing, btw, apart from discrediting the serious intent of Eisensteinian critique, by association, with your impassioned denunciations, which you don't even bother to elaborate for thoughtful consideration--the thrust of which, indeed, I've generously attempted to lend some respectability on your behalf. No need to thank me!
I know you'll respond positively to my "simple honesty".

Many thanks to all for a frank and interesting, if indeterminate, conversation.
I'm obliged to abstain again for the nonse though.
Ta ta for now.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"I appear to have given offence ... I'm sorry."
You alone know if it was given. I alone know if it was received.
Not knowing what it was you gave, if, indeed, you did give something, I have no way of knowing if I received it or not.

.
" It's perfectly reasonable to continue to doubt; indeed it's unreasonable not to "
Then I am sure you will agree when I say I have my doubts on that.

.
" Have you studied phenomenology ... ?"
No. However, I am familiar with the concept, having taught and practised risk management for many years.

.
" Holding a position firmly 'until a better explanation becomes available' sounds reasonable but tends to ossify ..."
I prefer "ossification" to "liquefication" but hope to avoid both.

.
" I reject all forms of categorisation" ... these are hypothetically-imposed "method", to give a distinguishable semblance of order to intellectual chaos and prevent a fall into dilettantism."
It also gives some people a sense of identity and security, the feeling that they belong to a group. I have never felt those needs. On the contrary, I have always needed to feel free and autonomous.

.
" How do you define "freedom"?
Allow me simply to say that I consider that I dispose of free will and am responsible for my acts.

.
" What is the "I" that's prepared to share?"
I do not know what the "I" is but I know who it is. It's me, Banjo Paterson.

.
"... do you really think you can see sufficiently clearly on the specific issue of consciousness ...?"
Yes. But please let me know if you think I am mistaken..

.
"... a unity of consciousness materialism can't account for!"
Why do you consider that materialism can't account for "a unity of consciousness" whatever that is?

.
" Opinion is always arbitrary and ignorance should be cherished."
That sounds vaguely familiar. Perhaps an allusion to Plato's apology of Socrates. Outside that context, however, I could not disagree more.

.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Biological computer science seems to be making some timid progress on creating artificial "mind":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358822.stm

http://www.technioniit.com/2012/02/biological-computer-1-billion-programs.html

.

Banjo Paterson:

<"... do you really think you can see sufficiently clearly on the specific issue of consciousness ...?"
Yes. But please let me know if you think I am mistaken..>

You are mistaken.

<Why do you consider that materialism can't account for "a unity of consciousness" whatever that is?>

This is not my "opinion". Both unity of consciousness and materialism's failure to account for it are rigorously argued in the analytic literature, i.e. using formal rather than rhetorical argument.

Why do you consider you are in a position to know when you know nothing of the arguments?

Opinion, btw, "is" always arbitrary (think about it) and ignorance should be cherished because it's what drives us on. You are "free" to differ of course. (I'm not indebted to Plato's Socrates btw; who, however, was deemed wisest because he alone knew he knew nothing. I imagine you see this as "liquefication" rather than open-mindedness).

Thanks for the pop articles on the "birth" of biological computers. It seems scientists have also found DNA might be the best way to store vast amounts of digital data. Scientific innovations are generally made by imitating nature. The consensus though is that science is a long way from imitating "mind".
I don't think they're against the idea, or clinging to notions of the soul, any more than I am; they just appreciate the difficulties, whereas articles like the ones you cite rely on the ignorance (common sense) of their readers.

For those interested in and willing to consider the possibility of feasible real-world alternatives to the status quo:

Communities, co-operatives, and social businesses: Towards a systemic proposal
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-02-04/communities-co-operatives-and-social-businesses-towards-a-systemic-proposal

This is not 'wishful thinking' but is based on decades of experience of the Mondragon co-operative group in the Basque country - Spain's seventh-largest industrial-retail conglomerate. This offers a synthesis and a constructive way forwards from this thread, David G, if you choose to see it that way.

The author concludes (in part):

'The increasing threats that our civilization faces mirror a failed economy that drives the world to a fatal future. Governments have richly shown their subordination of policy to an economy that systemically fails to meet its goal of allocating resources efficiently, but is rather an instrument to maximize the returns of capital. Resilience-building practices are necessary to face the resulting multidimensional threats. When these practices are addressed bottom-up in local communities and implemented by their own citizenry more fruitful living experiences are generated. Many cases already exist where the reinforcement of local communities are already showing to be a powerful approach to development. Nevertheless, this approach still face major challenges to becoming a systemic proposal, among which is to build the economic viability of their socially and environmentally desirable approaches.

Nevertheless, no impediment prevents people from starting to test desirable ways to face the future. Nothing prevents people from starting to create cooperative social businesses. Such processes can start today, with a full faith that they will adapt better to people’s needs than the old capitalist structures.'

As capitalism fails to deliver the goods (quite literally) for growing numbers of people, more and more will be inspired by visions of something better and work towards its implementation. Necessity is becoming the mother of action and innovation.

"For the avoidance of doubt", as lawyers are wont to write, I am not against the formulation of ideas that will improve the lot of our descendents, Nick Rose.

I do object however to giving house-room to those notions that are arbitrarily decided by self-appointed do-gooders, and implemented through a command-and-control structure that denies individual creativity and enterprise. So far, this is all that I have witnessed on this thread - a litany of abuse at the existing system, and a series of "if onlys" that pass themselves off as vibrant new thinking.

In this frame of mind, reading of "bottom-up", community-based initiatives is relatively refreshing. The only cautionary note is that the schemes are essentially devised with disadvantaged communities in mind, as the article you link to makes quite clear:

"EU’s Social Business Initiative (European Commission 2011) definition of social businesses agrees with Yunus’, but it seems to restrict its application to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, but actually we know that a social business can positively affect all social groupings"

Significantly, no evidence is presented to support the "actually we know" afterthought.

"...the International Year of Cooperatives. This UN initiative was intended to raise public awareness of the invaluable contributions of cooperative enterprises to poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration."

All well and good, if we start with the premise that the objective is subsistence in a mean and unforgiving world. This is a situation that the already-disadvantaged can relate to, but would be necessary to instill into the already-well-off. (That's us,by the way).

How to do it? Through fear, apparently.

"The Transition Network’s Initiatives suggest a processes of experimentation risen up from local communities in order to... raise awareness about the need, responsibility and feasibility to act before climate change, peak oil and other threats".

That's the real challenge. If you need to scare the crap out of people in order to get to the starting-gate, you are clearly off on the wrong foot. And what you are left with is still just a solution looking for a problem.

.

Dear Squeers,

.
"You are mistaken"
Just as well I asked. Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks for the tip. I'll keep an eye out.

.
" Both unity of consciousness and materialism's failure to account for it are rigorously argued in the analytic literature"
I see there is, indeed, ample literature on the question. I shall take the time to study it.

.
"Why do you consider you are in a position to know when you know nothing of the arguments?"
Precisely because I knew nothing of "the arguments". If they convince me, my knowledge will alter. My knowledge alters every time I am convinced by new arguments.

.
"Opinion, btw, "is" always arbitrary (think about it) and ignorance should be cherished because it's what drives us on"
It depends on the point of time. Arbitrary derives from the Latin "arbitrarius", uncertain. To qualify an opinion as "arbitrary" is to place oneself before the event. If, after the event, the opinion proves correct, the certitude of the person having expressed is justified.

"Opinions may seem arbitrary" would be a more appropriate expression.

Also, ignorance drives curious people (people who cherish knowledge) on. It does not drive philistine thickheads on. They are quite happy to carry on wallowing in it.

It is not ignorance which is to be cherished but curiosity, enthusiasm for learning and knowledge.

.

Nick, thanks for providing that link and bringing this thread back to its original purpose which was to consider Eisenstein's theories about a visionary new paradigm for living, one based on communities and their benefits.

The link needs to be carefully studied but it seems to follow along the lines of my own thinking that there do exist alternative lifestyles which could lead people to enjoy a more rounded life rather than one that circulates around weekly visits to Harvey Norman.

I for one appreciate your article and its attempt to pull the scales from the eyes of the flat-earthers who can't grasp the fact that capitalism is a curse to most and a golden goose to only a few!

Humans can, in theory, create any kind of world they desire. All they have to do is to get rid of the Parasites and Predators who run the world for their own benefit!

.

Dear Nick & Pericles,

.

This is an academic piece written by a Spanish sustainable development consultant.

It is a macro-economic round-up of the evolution of world capitalism, its strengths and weaknesses.

There is no mention whatsoever of this in the title of the article. It says the subject is "Communities, co-operatives, and social businesses: towards a systemic proposal", but the author only mentions this subject briefly from time to time and provides not the slightest detail - though the article is painfully long (20 pages).

The author is presented as "a long time worker at the Mondragon Cooperative in the Basque Country, Spain" but he doesn't say anything about that either. Too bad - it happened to be the one reason that decided me to wade through the 20 pages of warmed-up macro-economic tautology.

Not a single word, either, about the kibboutzim which have been operating in what is known today as Israel (the first kibboutz having been set-up in Degania in 1909) which today employ over 120 000 people and represent roughly 10% of Israel's industrial production, 40% of its agricultural production and 6% of its GDP.

No mention, either, of the North American co-operative movement. That would have been of interest to me too.

There are over 21,000 cooperatives in the US with over 127 million members, 7,500 housing cooperatives with more than 3 million members and 7,000 employees, and nearly 9,500 credit unions with almost 90 million members and 250,000 employees.

There are also 9,000 cooperatives in Canada with more than 18 million members.

Here is the link to the Quebec 2012 International summit of cooperatives:

http://www.2012intlsummit.coop/site/summit-info/news;jsessionid=8488304689671426409CB1830FCD8441?template=newsDetail&newsID=6444

The largest 300 co-operatives in the world have collective revenues of USD 1.6 trillion - comparable to the GDP of the world's ninth largest economy:

Even Australia has a dynamic cooperative economy:
http://www.australia.coop/ca/

.

Thanks, Nick, for the link. Have scanned it and am in complete agreement. I've been hammering the same themes for years.
There is nothing "arbitrary", Pericles, about the argument put forward by these "do-gooders". They are perfectly entitled to their concerns and a voice--it's a matter of life and death now and not merely equity. Even supposing our co-operative system was the utopia you seem to cherish, it remains "destructive, unsustainable and morally bankrupt". Indeed that's the price.
Political economy is, classically, supposed to provide for the security, in perpetuity, of a nation State and its members. It derives from moral philosophy and was modelled after household economics. It is not meant to expand its economic borders in perpetuity (indeed Smith thought that unfeasible) while leaving swathes of its own territory in poverty and/or without the means for the members to support themselves, and so live in dignity and a semblance of equality with wealthier quarters. Our definitions of poverty have changed. But so have our definitions of wealth. The ratio wealth:poverty hasn't changed, it's just that now the impoverished can eat. Indeed get fat. We're all little generators of wealth for the coffers of corporations and our betters; obesity, addiction, mental-enslavement, neurosis and meanness of spirit are all biproduct, not essence. Political economy wasn't meant to dictate how one should live; qualitatively or quantitively, rich or poor, exploiter or exploited; either way, by his own avarice and/or will to compete--these days in terms of consumption.
I haven't read the article and I can't find what you're pointing to in it or this thread when you assert it's to be, "implemented through a command-and-control structure that denies individual creativity and enterprise". Would you direct me please to where this is enunciated? Or is this just your reactionary paranoia?
But how about you address just one point. Let's pretend it's the best of all possible worlds; doesn't a household, and a world, have to live within its means? Cut the coat to suit the cloth? It's patently unsustainable. You might be content to enjoy the moment, but I have children.

Squeers,

Sorry for my tardiness in responding to you, but I’ve been occupied.

Yes, totally agree with you. We are now getting further and further away from classic liberalism that I think we at least got close to having once (there are just larger malignant influences now), and now we need to fight the economic fundamentalists who are damaging the quality of our lives and making it so meaningless.

I was basically aligning conservatism (in the progressive sense) with classic liberalism. Whether true or not, but I think it is. Preserving society from the bad and disruptive elements – I just added responsibility. I’m not sure we have much of a society any more.

Life now just seems to be an ongoing battle, with lots of divisiveness.

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever necessary.

“it's profligate, destructive and morally bankrupt”. Totally true.

I'm plane speaking.

Thanks Constance,

We are in agreement and you remind me to be careful not to reject conservatism in toto. It's all to easy as the enemy when it hinders necessary change, but it's also vital to preserving what's worthwhile.

Like any right-thinking person, I am thoroughly repulsed by totalitarianism, or any system that operates as Pericles has it, as a "command-and-control structure that denies individual creativity and enterprise", which unfortunately is what "Leftism" has come to be associated with in the popular imagination. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Just as I have to eschew prejudice and consider the merits of liberal conservatism, so too should those who make a strawman of leftist thought. Radicalism is not a mode of political economy, but a reaction to it--the body of society's antibodies and vital to its health.

I can sympathise with your being busy ..

Sorry, meant to say above, "It's all to easy to see it as the enemy".

.

Dear Squeers,

.
You wrote to Pericles: "it [our co-operative system ] remains destructive, unsustainable and morally bankrupt".

That sounds interesting. I have some serious reserves on the so-called independence and democratic practices of mutual societies and organisations in the financial sector, as I do with that of trade unions.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

.

Squeers:
<Even supposing our co-operative system was the utopia you seem to cherish, it remains "destructive, unsustainable and morally bankrupt". Indeed that's the price.>

Banjo Paterson,

apologies, I'm pressed and that is rather garbled. As I hope the foregoing indicates, I was alluding to capitalism, which is anything but a cooperative. I was also attempting to quote myself and got that wrong too.
From my scan I take one of the arguments of Nick's article to be that the current system pushes ever outwards, economically, while neglecting its domestic mandate to provide. Economic growth is derived from unsustainable and destructive economic expansion, outside the State (as well as inside via internal consumption, which recycles and largly reappropriates what is directed back), that cannot even provide for prosperity, broadly, inside. Australia is a prime example, being one of the richest States on Earth, generating enormous wealth, which it couldn't possibly generate domestically, from the mining boom. And yet conditions in Australia are "maintained" at best. Why are the streets not paved with gold? Clearly because the wealth doesn't go to Australia in any qualitative sense. The money goes to various private interests, is recycled as consumption and drawn off again (overpaid miners are virtually molested by commercialism and fleeced of their incomes by reciprocal inflation), or its invested unsustainably in the farm: population and infrastructure growth at home, great little earners! Not only does the quality of life not improve, but the suburbs and infrastructure sprawl ever outwards (over farming land), all derived, ultimately, from exports and utterly unsustainable without them (and they can't be sustained). A classic example of a household living beyond its means--beyond husbandry.

Sorry to disappoint. Doubtless you have some dirt on the world's so-called cooperatives. Nothing escapes corruption in this world, where nothing is sacred. That's one of the reasons I'm a pessimistic realist. One can't set-up a hippie colony on the Gold Coast.
That doesn't make the concept of cooperatives evil, just vulnerable, even untenable. Ultimately, no other system can co-exist with global capitalism. It will consume all and then collapse.

Squeers, you said: "That doesn't make the concept of cooperatives evil, just vulnerable, even untenable. Ultimately, no other system can co-exist with global capitalism. It will consume all and then collapse."

Though it may upset the Shadow, what you have said is true and it seems to bring many of the points made on thread together nicely!

Well done, Sir!

Thanks David G, and sorry I got a bit heated before. I'm sure we all feel passionate about the positions we find ourselves entrenched in.

'Entrenched' is not a word that thinkers use, Squeers. They are always questioning, always alert, always joining the dots then re-arranging them, always evaluating what they are told, always looking for new ways to do things and looking at new paths to follow.

Banjo and you and I all began life the same way but, somehow, we have struggled to lift ourselves up by our bootstraps and succeeded. But our humble beginnings have kept us grounded in reality which is the starting point for any thinker.

Take care!

.

Dear David G & Squeers,

.
Squeers -

"apologies, I'm pressed and that is rather garbled. As I hope the foregoing indicates, I was alluding to capitalism ..."

Unfortunately, "it" does not "indicate" ... but "you" do ... which is all that matters.

Though, little by little, I am beginning to understand you, I have not yet arrived at the point where I can read your mind and automatically rectify any errors of expression.

As you know, I detest categorization, otherwise I should be tempted to mark you as being prone to tripping on the carpet in your haste to respond. But, don't worry, there is no risk of my ceding to such a trivial temptation.

.
"Sorry to disappoint. Doubtless you have some dirt on the world's so-called cooperatives. Nothing escapes corruption in this world, where nothing is sacred".

You do not disappoint. You reassure. Also, as I hope you can see from my posts on OLO: ... I do not deal in dirt.

It is simply that on a few notable occasions, I have observed how so-called democratic procedures can be craftily manipulated. I have also witnessed that a regrettibly significant portion of mankind is tempted to seek advantage without cause whenever power and wealth are at stake.

.
David G -

Your wisdom knows no bounds!

.

David G,
I used the term "entrenched" deliberately, firstly as a WW1 metaphor to indicate the polarised positions here, as elsewhere more or less between left and right. But mainly alluding again to my suspicion that none of us are "thinkers" in any objective or unbiased sense. I acknowledged to WM Trevor above that "It is a constant worry that one is merely venting prejudice or some vested interest or psychological need etc." and this remains my position, though I for one am aware of the danger and try to be vigilant.

Banjo,
of course I don't say you deal in dirt ('twas a metaphor) any more than that you're a "philistine thickhead"; my use of philistinism was facetious from the start. And I anticipated your last paragraph above with, "... obesity, addiction, mental-enslavement, neurosis and meanness of spirit are all biproduct (of capitalism), not essence".
My mother always did say, "you're too clever by 'alf!", but I suspect she was being facetious too.

As a fully paid member of the “Starry Eyed”, I have a problem with both Capitalism and Democracy.
Capitalism as a system is not about free or laissez faire markets, or competition. It's about the acquisition of Capital.
Endlessly.
In such a system, Greed is not just Good; it's everything. Making one of Humanity's most unattractive traits the basis of our economic system is bizarre to say the least. We (most of us at least, I think) don't admire greed in our friends and associates, and certainly not in our children, so why do we find it so laudable in our highest -material- achievers?
The great advantage, empirically tested over many decades, of the Capitalist system over the Socialist system is not the more utilitarian application of Greed, but the residual effect of allowing Competition. I say residual because Capitalists hate competition. It gets in the way of acquiring Capital.
Competition lingers on despite Capitalism, not because of it.
If we could simply refocus our goals to free -and fair- markets, and free -and fair- competition, then this I would suggest could be the “next chapter”; how to get from here to there.
A simple start would be a -much, much- stronger ACCC.

And the problem, indeed the fatal flaw, of Democracy will be evident in the coming months.
Every three years or so we the people get the chance to vote in the party who offers us the most, and charges us the least.
We demand more and better services, while at the same time we resist any attempt to actually pay for them (pay more tax).
While this does to a small degree provide incentives to politicians to come up with new and innovative ways to raise money, the Neo Liberal doctrine embraced by both major parties has denied our Government the right and ability to raise funds in the most obvious and practical way.
By going into business (again).
The greatest advantage of diversity is we don't have to rely on ideology or theory. We can just look around and see what works best.
Personally, I think we could learn a lot from Singapore and northern Europe.

I reckon that's only half the story, grim.

>>And the problem, indeed the fatal flaw, of Democracy will be evident in the coming months. Every three years or so we the people get the chance to vote in the party who offers us the most, and charges us the least.<<

If we were able to hold the politicians legally liable for the promises they make during the campaign, we might actually be able to make a modicum of progress. Sadly, we seem to have acquired the habit of simply shrugging our shoulders every time the Party we elected completely ignores the platform upon which they campaigned, and instead does something we didn't vote for.

In the business world, this would be fraud. And prosecuted accordingly. We just mutter "bloody politicians", and turn to the sports pages.

But this is not the answer either:

>>...raise funds in the most obvious and practical way. By going into business (again)<<

Businesses are built and thrive on risk. The capital employed is at risk. The decisions that management makes are fraught with risk. The very jobs that the employees do are at risk. The result is - although still imperfect - the best available mix of effort, reward, and value for money.

Government departments are pathologically risk-averse. They will invariably take the lowest-cost tender, on the basis that if they didn't, they'd be wasting taxpayer dollars. This inevitably removes quality from the equation, as well as experience, judgement and imagination.

The result is that no government department should be allowed to run a business more complex than cleaning public toilets.

In NSW, we know it to be as true, as night follows day, that any government project will cost billions of dollars, and fail to deliver an end result within coo-eee of the planned outcome.

If, indeed, they produce anything at all.

The list of failed projects, as well as those that don't even get off the drawing-board, is extremely long.

.

Dear Grim,

.

"Capitalists hate competition. It gets in the way of acquiring Capital."

I see you are not a man to mince words. Short back and sides. All nicely trimmed. Nothing out of line tolerated.

Dick Salsman pleads exactly the contrary in his 1999 lecture at Harvard Univsersity "What does Competition mean under Capitalism":

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2000/01/what-does-competition-mean-under-capitalism/

As Pericles seems to suggest, the truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes.

Competition is the law of nature. Evolution follows the most efficient path. But civilisation commands that we impose rules and regulations on human activity, including economic activity.

Nature eliminates those who are unable to compete. Not Civilisation. It supports them.

Capitalistic behaviour exists in nature. We humans are not the only animal species to practice capitalism.

Bees keep most of their honey in the bank. Ants not only capitalise on food (leaves, fungus etc.), they also obtain interesting yields from their investment. They employ sophisticated horticultural techniques to enhance their crop yields. They secrete chemicals with antibiotic properties to inhibit mould growth and even use manure for fertilization.

Food availability in nature is often suboptimal and unpredictable. Capitalisation assures continuity of food supply over time. It smooths out the peaks and the troughs in the market.

In addition, food capitalisation is more energy efficient than fat storage because food hoarding does not require it to be eaten, catabolised and converted, internally, into a storable form of energy until mobilized.

Overeating, with its resultant fat storage and increased body mass, also has the inconvenience of exposing animals to an increased predation risk, as ambulation becomes more cumbersome and slow. They, themselves, become food storage for other animals.

There's safety in capitalism.

.

“Businesses are built and thrive on risk...”
For truth, justice, and the American Way!
Really, Pericles?
Really?
Leaving such highly original thoughts on an old story (propaganda) long taught by (Capitalist) schools, the physical truth is businesses thrive on profits. The most profitable businesses (and least risky) are those which enjoy the least amount of Competition (think Bill Gates, enjoying a 90% share of the OS market, or Carlos Slim -controlling 90% Mexican landlines and 80% mobile coverage).
The only businesses which 'thrive' on risk are of course insurance companies, and obviously they thrive only when the risks are more apparent than real.
Since '08, the world's very largest corporations ('too big to be allowed to fail') have achieved business Nirvana, successfully managing to privatise their profits while socialising their losses, guaranteed by tax payers money.
What risk?
Mind you, I agree with the sentiment of your argument. Businesses SHOULD thrive on risk. But so long as businesses are allowed to buy out, merge with or ruthlessly eliminate any business which poses any risk to them by fair means or foul, this environment will remain purely hypothetical.
I also agree with your sentiments about Governments; however there are some businesses which are largely bureaucratic by nature, and therefore ideally suited to Government control or oversight. Think Banks, insurance companies...
Innovation comes from Competitive businesses, working in a Competitive environment. This is where (small, at least) businesses really thrive. I wonder how many innovative, fledgling businesses are swallowed and silenced every year for posing too great a 'risk' to established industries?
Governments may (arguably) not be great at running businesses, and (inarguably) bloody awful at innovation, but there is no reason why the Gov. can't be more supportive -and protective- of smaller, weaker businesses.
It really only requires us to apply the same standards of decency (the same legal framework) to the business world that we apply to our society; that we MUST apply if we are to reasonably claim to be 'civilised'.

G'day Bugsy,
This is of course an excellent argument for Capitalism (at least superficially); and has been for the 150 odd years since Herbert Spencer first proposed it.
(Yawn).
Yes, there is safety in Capitalism.
For those with Capital.
For those without, the economic future in this oh so 'natural' system is about as rosy as being smeared with honey and pegged to one of those very efficient ant hills.
Check your natural system for: Altruism, Honour, sympathy, empathy, charity, nobility, selflessness, generosity, Philosophy, Morality, Ethics...
Are we to eschew these very Human characteristics for their lack of utility or efficiency?
If we as humans were obliged to obey just one law, I for one would much prefer “treat others as you yourself would like to be treated”, over Survival of The Fittest.

There's safety in capitalism, says Banjo. You can't be serious, surely? What a terrible comment to put at the end of this important thread!

Banjo, the world we live is is tearing itself to pieces as, under the greed-driven capitalist system, a few nations (one in particular) struggle to dominate all others, as the inequality of wealth increases daily, as wars being fought over scarce resources and strategic advantage rage endlessly, as billions starve or are impoverished or homeless, as nuclear Armageddon beckons.

Whatever could you have been thinking, Banjo? Capitalism, along with religion, is a curse that is destroying our world and turning humans into pigs like the ones in Animal Farm.

If we don't change our world, Banjo, we will soon become extinct!

That's the stark choice.

Banjo Paterson,

I think it's a matter of degree.

Yes, of course the intelligence to store nutrient for the future and to enhance cultivation and harvest are techniques which optimize survival of any group, but the arrival of "Capitalism as a system" didn't herald anything new in that respect. (funny that you use ants in your example - they're the only other species - save for a few varieties of rats - that practice intra-species warfare).

You say there is safety in capitalism. I say there is safety in civilisation.

Grim's list of "Altruism, Honour, sympathy, empathy charity, nobility, selflessness, generosity, Philosophy, Morality, ethics" don't have any particular connection with capitalism, but they do with the notion of civilisation. Capitalism, if anything, dilutes the human propensity to practice those virtues.

A case in point: capitalism has delivered to India a revolution in agriculture. It has replaced old-fashioned farming techniques, replaced them with broad acre monoculture. In doing so, it has had dire effects on India's environment so much so that it is almost completely "unsustainable". The soil is poisoned and degraded the groundwater is poisoned and depleted. Tens of millions of people have migrated off the land to shanty towns near cities. They have lost much ancient knowledge of horticulture and biodiversity, things they practiced for thousands of years.

How is this going to work out for Indian's in the future. Capitalism only delivers until everything is eaten up and polluted. It is a finite fairytale and one in which the piper must be paid.

Civilisations that have endured for thousands of years buy into capitalism and pollute themselves into oblivion.

Are you sure you've got the right target in mind, Poirot?

Since technically there's been 'capitalism' since there has been currency, which takes us back to the Late Bronze Age arguably, and to Iron Age Anatolia certainly.

Maybe your real target is industrialisation? Or the demise of agrarian societies?

Of course capital is an inherent aspect of industrialisation – but to stretch the analogy, it's a bit like blaming the petrol for the car that just ran into you. Even though it was the driver's fault – however inadvertent – who should have noticed you standing in the way.

Yo, WmTrevor,

Right you are : )

Industrialism + Capitalism IS the perfect storm.

Industrialism + capitalism + religion + nukes + greedy humans IS the perfect storm!

And it won't be long now before it breaks on our heads!

.

Dear David G, Grim & Poirot,

.

I share your concerns regarding the deviations, abuses and excesses of financial capitalism and their devastating effects on the economy and the eco-system resulting in so much human tragedy.

Let us consider, at least for the sake of this debate, that it may, perhaps, qualify as a crime against humanity and imagine that it is to be brought to trial before the International Criminal Court of the United Nations.

As democrats, I imagine that most, if not all, of us would agree that capitalism should have a fair trial and that it has the right to defend itself, even if we are persuaded, in advance, of its guilt.

Lynching capitalism without a fair trial is not my idea of justice, even for the worst of criminals. I am, however, in favour of capital punishment for any party found guilty of crimes against humanity.

Therefore, before condemning capitalism, and proceeding with its execution, I propose that we make an effort to put our rage on ice for the time being and calm down for the time necessary to examine the case as equitably as possible, collecting evidence, both for and against.

I also beg to suggest that we should carefully consider the dire consequences of eliminating capitalism, if, indeed, we find it guilty as accused, without immediately substituting it with a universally accepted alternative.

Trusting that this obtains your agreement, I respectfully submit the following document as evidence (Item 1):

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNS.ICTR.ZS

In doing so, I draw your attention to the fact that capitalism is practiced throughout the world by a very large number of people, the large majority being middle class people.

Their life savings are tied up in capital investments, probably mostly in housing.

It is also interesting to note that the countries with the highest savings rates are:

- China ................... 53% of GDP
- Audi Arabia ...........47%
- Azerbaijan .............46%

The USA is relatively low on the list with a savings rate of only 12% of GDP.

.

Banjo Patterson, anthropomorphising nature by imputing 'capitalistic' behaviours and motivations to other species won't do. While it may seem 'common sense' that evolution is a purely competitive struggle of 'survival of the fittest', recent research suggests a rather different conclusion:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200909/is-nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw

http://www.soundstrue.com/shop/articles/Breaking_News-Science_Discovers_Intelligent_Life-In_Every_Cell-An_Interview_with_Bruce_H_Lipton_PhD?component=authorcontent

An excerpt from the latter:

"So, in a way, evolution is not based on survival of the fittest but is actually based on cooperation.

Bruce Lipton: Absolutely. Evolution is a reflection of cooperation. Evolution isn't one animal against another—it's animals learning how to live in harmony with each other. Maintaining our belief in a Darwinian struggle of survival of the fittest is totally counterproductive to our actual evolution. And its destructive consequences of this belief of survival as a perceived struggle are responsible for most of the problems that we have on the planet today."

I invite you to re-consider your deepest assumptions of the nature of human society, and the idea that capitalism is somehow 'natural':

http://www.zeitnews.org/viewpoints/jas-garcha/collaboration-vs-competition

"All in all, the old notion of competition being an unavoidable behaviour that is more productive, more enjoyable, and always leads to higher achievement seems to have little evidential support. Instead, we see that cooperation is far more beneficial to both the individual (in terms of personal success and perceived pleasure) and to society (in terms of productivity).

Ultimately, the only thing competition is universally good for is speed, which happens to fit in nicely with a capitalistic society where 'time is money'.

But in a society without money, what use would competition be other than as a displeasing, self esteem-lowering hindrance to human progress?"

.

Dear WmTrevor,

.

I like your analogy of "blaming the petrol for the car that just ran into you. Even though it was the driver's fault – however inadvertent – who should have noticed you standing in the way."

That basically sums up my opinion of many of the aberrations commonly attributed to capitalism.

Whatever the financial or economic system we are capable of imagining as a substitute for capitalism, there can be no doubt there will always be some who will seek to dominate, to take control and grab as much as they can, to the detriment of all others, without the slightest remorse.

Instead of focalising on capitalism, we should turn our attention to the behaviour of a certain number of "drivers" within the system and either root them out or oblige them to change their ways by every legal means at our disposal.

I suspect we shall find there is no such thing as a perfect substitute to capitalism which is both equally efficient and universally acceptable.

Even if we were to devise such a substitute, it is difficult to imagine that an orderly transition from one system to the other could be realised in just a few generations.

The sooner we get our act together the better.

We need to install a new, compulsory "driver's license" and police it rigorously and severely.

.

Banjo Paterson,

I've posted this link many times before, but I have found no other which explains so well the situation from the perspective of the developing world...and the loss of autonomy for ordinary people inherent in a globalised/industrialised/capitalist arrangement.

I hope you can find the time to read it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm

Capitalism first went forth and stole people which, chained like animals, it used as slaves.

Now the Capitalist scum go forth and takeover poor countries, use their cheap resources and labor, and pay them a starvation wage.

Capitalists have refined the capitalist system to a stage where a tiny minority of the rich get extravagantly rich and live like Kings and Queens while the middle class has diminished and joined the poor impoverished classes.

The capitalists have trashed our planet wherever they've been and indoctrinated the proles to the stage where they think a wide-screen tellie, which shows only trivia and advertising, is paradise.

What a world we might have had if it was capitalists that Hitler had put in the gas ovens!

Appreciated, Banjo Paterson… for the record, the analogy had nothing to do with your initials being BP.

I don't blame Nick for the title 'Economies should be shaped to suit man' but it makes it sound like it was imposed by extraterrestrials and then too easy to forget that economics represents how humans transact with each other and has changed throughout history, waxing and waning in complexity, along with societies.

There's probably a book in a vehicle-based analogy for a theory of the Economic Superhighway. Most of the world's population are pedestrians though. Many of us are in cars of types reflecting our natures – widows who do the church flowers are in Datsun 120Ys, financial adviser types in anything German and the more cylinders the better (often distracted whilst driving by texting and not using the phone hands-free), politicians are always chauffeured.

Lots of drivers are distracted, unlicensed or under the influence.

For some reason I imagine Transnational banks as tracked main battle tanks and armoured fighting vehicles. They don't have indicators to use when they change lanes – they seem to have an inherent advantage when the rest of the traffic is jammed to a standstill – and sometimes they're barrelling (literally) against the flow when looking for a shortcut.

All of us are trying to get to a destination the best way we know how without crashing.

The analogy is extensible to philosophy. If, like Hans-Georg Gadamer, we deny the original diremption of discrete horizons, rejecting that understanding requires us to transpose ourselves into another – this is like someone trying to drive whilst all the windows are constantly fogging up, but thinking he can see clearly enough.

(That was a joke for Squeers)

WmTrevor,
I disagree with everything you and you're mentor have said here, and I think Banjo Paterson, latterly, is talking garbage (makes me wonder if he's deliberately trolling--if I'm using the word correctly. Sorry don't mean to be rude in not addressing you directly, Banjo, just that I began the thread addressing WM). You're all just muffling complacently and incoherently in your own nosebags. I don't have the time to argue some of the idiotic comments about capitalism of late (and besides what's the use? Besidea also, neither Pericles nor his acolyte has [or could} defend the arguments I've directed at them. Suffice it to say there is a large body of work that differentiates capitalism from anything prior to it.
I draw from that. Just as I draw from the literature on consciousness and other topics.
I think we've reached the limits of "opinion" here--and it's not very edifying.

.

Dear Nick,

.

Thank you for your links, in particular, to the interview of the cellular biologist, Bruce Lipton and Jas Garcha's article on "Collaboration v Competition".

It was the French philosopher, Auguste Comte, who invented the term altruism as well as the term sociology. He saw altruism as the solicitude for fellow human beings that would eventually constitute a new religion, replacing what he considered to be false, theological, pre-scientific, and metaphysical religion.

Altruism has since become a household word but certainly not a religion, and Christianity, which Comte was no doubt referring to in such disparaging terms, continues to flourish in the world today as it did during his lifetime.

Despite the fact that the exact nature and extent of mankind's altruism is not as clearly identifiable scientifically as that of social insect colonies and swarms of jellyfish, sociobiologists attest that mankind distinguishes himself from all other animal species, not only by his superior intelligence, but also by his greater propensity to cooperate and coordinate his activities with others.

Allow me to recommend Samir Okasha's article on Biological Altruism in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

The gradual evolution of the individual human being towards greater autonomy appears to have given him a keener sense of his responsibilities and awakened him to the plight of others, less fortunate and in need.

The source of this nascent altruism is probably to be found in his burgeoning social conscience. It is an unprecedented phenomenon in human development and authorises a certain amount of optimism as to the future evolution of human relationships. Perhaps even more importantly, it demonstrates that greater individual autonomy leads to more active, personal engagement in solidarity and not to the exacerbation of latent egoistic tendencies, as some might imagine.

Contrary to Lipton and Garcha, however, I do not see any antagonism anywhere in nature between competition and collaboration or cooperation. All of these phenomena and many others cohabit and complement each other perfectly in nature.

I see Darwin and present day sociobiologists as both contributing their particular share of truth of the complexity of nature.

.

I must say I find it quite extraordinary the number of people who treat human systems, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, as if they were blocks of concrete; immutable, changeless...
Is it simply a lack of imagination?
I fully agree with Churchill's assessment of Democracy; in fact I would apply it equally to Capitalism. While both systems are fatally flawed, they are still better than any alternative so far explored.
Capitalism has -so far- offered the greatest freedom to DOMESTIC operators. All attempts to export particular flavours of western capitalism into less than willing recipient nations have generally been disastrous -at least for the recipients.
It's no coincidence that so many of the poorest countries on Earth are former colonies of western powers.
Individual freedom to my mind is paramount. It must be established, however, which is the greater freedom:
The freedom to exploit your fellow man without legal restriction, scruple or mercy, or
Freedom FROM exploitation.
The freedom for (Australian, at least) women and children to walk and play in public is not guaranteed by a restrictive dress code or by a muscular husband or the right to carry concealed weapons. These rights are guaranteed by a strong legal system and a -largely- incorruptible Police force. A free media doesn't hurt either.
So why is it that markets must be “free” of the regulations that work so well in our society?
I realise many people might feel inclined to rise up at this point and declare our legal system doesn't work so well; crime still exists, women and children are still sometimes mistreated and exploited, but who would suggest the situation would be improved with fewer laws, less 'regulations'?
Yet this is precisely what RW Libertarians claim, regarding the MarketPlace.
Capitalism isn't a block of concrete. It can be changed. It can be fixed.
By recognising the sovereign rights of individuals (and groups and nations), a strong and fair legal code should be the instrument of freedom, not an impediment.

The point at which Capitalism and Democracy intercept, I would suggest, is in Taxation.
While Democracy intimates a degree of equality, of rights, obligations and freedoms, Capitalism is the opposite, transparently favouring at best the capable, the opportunistic and the talented; at worst the greedy, the ruthless, the unscrupulous, the criminally minded sociopaths...
The only avenue the Gov. is allowed by Neo Liberal philosophy to some semblance of equitable wealth distribution is the progressive tax system. As I pointed out earlier, this is a fatal flaw, inasmuch as Democracy is by definition a popularist system, -and taxation (particularly in-your-face income tax) has never been and never will be popular.
So how else can the Gov. acquire the funds to pay for the services we demand?
Forget Neo Liberalism, for a start. Use the Future Fund to invest in profitable businesses of all sizes (or just stop selling profitable businesses... oops, too late) rather than hanging on to only the unprofitable ones.
Again, Singapore provides a good example of what can be done.
As far as narrowing the gap between the haves and have nots, taxation -even progressive taxation- has proven woefully inadequate.
Since all the largest corporations and richest individuals reached their egregious levels of wealth by buyouts, mergers and business acquisitions, strong laws against anti-competitive practices would be far more effective.
While I sympathise with Nick Rose's sentiments concerning competition, and strongly endorse a spirit of co-operation and 'networking', I would have to say competition is completely “natural” to at least the human condition.
What game does not involve competition?
And how many children don't enjoy playing games?
I have however, always stressed to my children that the only person they need ever compete with is themselves.
Competition can be healthy or unhealthy.
It would be nice if societies spent as much effort promoting healthy competition as they did health.

Banjo Paterson,

"The gradual evolution pf the individual human being towards greater autonomy appears to have given him a keener sense of his responsibilities and awakened him to the plight of others less fortunate and in need.C"

Cough!....

If you're referring to the current Western paradigm as being an "evolutionary epoch", I think you're sadly mistaken. About 4/5 of the world's population live almost exactly as their ancestors did.

Just like to point out that increasing autonomy has the reverse effect to that which you suggest....the pic here is more likely to be the reaction from your average autonomous Westerner: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-27/housing-affordability-crisis-blamed-for-homeless-rise/4395540?section=wa

And imperialist policy has, in the main, been to subjugate the less developed in this world and to relieve them of their autonomy and their land and resources...."altruism" on an imperial scale can be summed up by America's foray into Iraq to save them from Saddam (the reality being that they were seeking unfettered influence over that country's resources)

As far as altruism goes in our own society, like everything else, it's mainly down to organisations and institutions to deliver domestic or international aid and succor - most people are too busy towing the line and competing to bother about personal intervention.

Here's an example of our "altruism".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-11/half-of-worlds-food-going-to-waste/4460322

Before WmTrevor intervenes - yes that should be "toeing the line".

(I actually meant to write that, but the "w" is beside the "e", and well, you know...:)

.

Dear Poirot,

.

Many thanks for the link to Vandana Shiva's lecture on Poverty and Globalisation.

She certainly paints a grim picture of the plight of farmers in the Punjab and Andhra Pradesh in India as well as several other countries (Java, sub-Saharan Africa, Nigeria, Thailand, the Congo, Indonesia, the Chiapas in Mexico ...).

It appears that the Indian government, or should I say, successive governments, have, for reasons better known to themselves, sold their farmers down the drain.

Many of her complaints are familiar to me as a close observer of the battles that go on regularly here in France among farmers, French government, the EU and the US authorities. It is an ongoing battle, often quite ferocious, involving fairly robust demonstrations and revolts, riot police and tough jail sentences for some of the leaders of the contestation.

As a result, though, Monsanto and its products have never managed to lay a foot in this country and the farmers have a very large say in any national and international agreements affecting their industry.

I thoroughly agree with Vanana that " Economic Globalisation has become a war against nature and the poor. But the rules of globalisation are not god - given. They can be changed. They must be changed. We must bring this war to an end."

It remains to be seen if the governments of the countries she cited, including the government of her own country, India, do not have what they consider to be other, more important, priorities.

The global picture presented by the UN in its 2012 Millennium Development Goals Report seems a little more encouraging:

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202012.pdf

Let's hope they're not just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

.

"Before WmTrevor intervenes - yes that should be "toeing the line"."

But I wouldn't have, Poirot... because I was enjoying how it worked for me as an allegory for phalanxes of consumers towing the lines under the whip, like slaves did in ancient Eygpt hauling monoliths to the pyramids (guess who's just finished John Romer's 'Ancient Lives'?) Similar reaction to when people talk about roads that are hard to hoe... because they, well, are aren't they?

Besides you make least? fewest? not much? grammatical errors of the OLO club members.

"...the OLO club members."

It's interesting to imagine what kind of group they would make should they meet once a month to discuss and debate current issues.

From the relative safety of their keyboards, individuals are courageous and fear no one. But in a group, people change. Dramatically.

Who would emerge as the group leaders? Who would sit in the background and do a good imitation of a curtain? Who would urge marching in the streets or the building of barricades or the storming of Parliament or entering the citadels of the Princes of Money, the taking of their ill-gotten wealth, and then volunteer to help with its fair redistribution?

Who would be the architects of a radical new society, a peaceful, non-war world? Or would the Lord of the Flies signify our fate?

OLO club members: a potent force for good or simply a crowd of whingers and naysayers?

.

Dear Grim and Squeers,

.

Squeers -

"... I think Banjo Paterson, latterly, is talking garbage (makes me wonder if he's deliberately trolling--if I'm using the word correctly."

"Talking garbage"? Naturally, I accept your judgement. If that is your opinion, then so be it. That is the rule of the game. By coming here, I accept, in advance, to expose myself to vastly differing opinions.

Of course, I am sorry to hear that you see my jewels as garbage. Please be assured, however, that under no circumstances could I ever imagine seeing your jewels in that light.

I take comfort in thinking that not only do you trip over carpets occasionally, but you are also highly sensitive and prone to excessive language. None of which is to be held against you.

"Trolling"? My purpose is not to provoke (troll) but to share as honestly and clearly as possible my particular vision of reality, avoiding, as far as I am capable, distorting the image with my own personal prejudices and aspirations.

I harbor absolutely no illusions whatsoever as to the results of the exercise. It's just a bottle in the ocean. An act of bravery "à la Don Quijote de la Mancha".

.

Grim -

I see from your analysis (above) that we are more or less on the same wavelength...

.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

I hope you have recovered from that nasty throat problem.

I must confess that my observation that "the gradual evolution of the individual human being towards greater autonomy (and altruism)" is incomprehensible out of context:

Current estimates of the total lifespan of all forms of life on earth place it at approximately five billion years. Four and a half billion years or 90% of that total have already gone. That leaves another 500 million years or 10% to go, before all forms of life on earth cease to exist.

Mankind is about to turn the last bend into the straight for the final sprint. He still has a lot to do if he wants to survive the end of the solar system. Time is running out for us to complete the process of emergence of the individual. We are 90% there and just have another 10% to go.

It could well be that it is those final 10% which are the most difficult to achieve, the most spectacular in terms of results and perhaps, also, the most rewarding.

It is difficult to imagine a totally autonomous individual as he may exist in 500 million years time. Perhaps there will be as much difference between him and us as there was between us and the primordial bacteria, worm, mollusc or whatever.

The continued emergence of the individual producing a more acute degree of consciousness as well as a greater capacity to exercise free will, necessarily modifies mankind’s relationship with his fellow human beings.

The differential in the rhythm of evolution among individuals throughout their lifetimes accentuates the natural cohabitation of antagonistic characteristics such as autonomy and dependence, consciousness and ignorance, egoism and altruism.

The examples of egoistical behaviour you indicate are legion and there will be many more. But, in my view, that does not alter the global evolution of mankind towards greater altruism.

I suspect that if nature has doted mankind with a conscience capable of developing altruism, it is probably because it is necessary for our survival.

.

I said: "LO club members: a potent force for good or simply a crowd of whingers and naysayers?"

I should've added windbags and procrastinators to the latter group!

Sorry.

'Tis human to err!'

.

Did you know? Australia is the most charitable (altruistic) nation in the world !

.

According to the World Givings Index 2012, the top 10 most charitable (altruistic) nations are:
1 - Australia
2 - Ireland
3 - Canada
4 - New Zealand
5 - USA
6 - Netherlands
7 - Indonesia
8 - UK
9 - Paraguay
10 - Denmark

The three criteria are Donating Money, Volunteering Time and Helping a Stranger.

Here is the link:

http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cafonline.org%2FPDF%2FWorldGivingIndex2012WEB.pdf&ei=_BcZUe6fLems0QX-hIGwDQ&usg=AFQjCNEQ3J1-lsRAEnfjjZBsSVQhkyqUXA&sig2=-mpdSGys_23XeXKPUSST7Q&bvm=bv.42080656,d.d2k&cad=rja

It was the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, so we are told, who, in the year AD 176, created the first charitable foundations. He created one endowed chair for each of the major schools of philosophy: Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism and Epicureanism.

Of the world's top 29 charitable foundations which exist today almost all are recent creations (post World War II).

The top 29 currently dispose of funds totaling US$ 11.4 trillion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_foundations

To this should be added the voluntary contributions to a multitude of charitable institutions such as churches, secular and religious organisations, international humanitarian organisations and other non-profit organisations.

Simply paying taxes is altruistic behaviour (as is voluntary community work) even though it may not be perceived as such by most taxpayers:

http://pages.uoregon.edu/thinking/altruism.html

Though it remains largely imperceptible and, therefore, ignored today, there are, nevertheless, signs that there is a groundswell of altruism building up which may, in some far distant future, become a tidal wave which could sweep along with it all those regrettable outbreaks of human egoism which will, no doubt, persist and take a very long, long time to irradicate.

Perhaps that is what inspired Eisenstein when he wrote " Sacred Economics", if not, what he has in mind when he indicates on his blog: "I will probably write another book soon on gift ..."

.

.

French to ban bank speculation ...

.

The French socialist government of president François Hollande is preparing a new law banning speculation in the agricultural markets by French banks.

During a televised debate last night, Junior Minister for the Social Economy, Benoît Hamon (leader of the left wing of the socialist party) said it is not the business of French banks to speculate on the price of cereals, disrupting world markets, while millions of people in undeveloped countries are starving every day.

France's leading bank, BNP Paribas, is reported to have made a profit of one million Euros last year speculating in the agricultural markets.

Hamon said France would take this initiative without waiting for the EU to act and hoped that other countries would follow France's example.

This came during a televised debate following a scandal on frozen processed foods such as pasta with meat and tomato sauce and shepherd's pie "made in France".

British health authorities found that instead of French beef as indicated on the packaging, the products contained Rumanian horse meat.

This is a clear case of fraud involving frozen processed food, for the sole motive of financial profit.

It is just another example of the destructive consequences of the financialisation of the economy whereby finance bullies production and services, imposing its priorities on them, dictating their decisions and getting rich at their expense.

The French economy reposes, historically, on its food and agricultural industries. French "cuisine" is reputedly one of the best in the world. It was classified, in 2010, by UNESCO as one of the world's "intangible cultural heritages".

This is the one domain where charlatans and swindlers should never have dared enter. They will be mercilessly tracked, caught and punished.

Happily, though, every cloud has a silver lining. The French government is now on the rampant, determined to take whatever measures are necessary to break the tyranny of finance and make it toe the line - at least in the one domain it considers strictly taboo, not just for the economy, but for the well being of mankind as a whole.

.

Dear David G,

.

The time has come ...

.

So throw the weary pen aside
And let the papers rest,
For we must saddle up and ride
Towards the blue hill's breast;
And we must travel far and fast
Across their rugged maze,
To find the Spring of Youth at last,
And call back from the buried past
The old Australian ways.

When Clancy took the drover's track
In years of long ago,
He drifted to the outer back
Beyond the Overflow;
By rolling plain and rocky shelf,
With stockwhip in his hand,
He reached at last, oh lucky elf,
The town of Come-and-help-yourself
In Rough-and-ready Land.

And if it be that you would know
The tracks he used to ride,
Then you must saddle up and go
Beyond the Queensland side -
Beyond the reach of rule or law,
To ride the long day through,
In Nature's homestead - filled with awe:
You then might see what Clancy saw
And know what Clancy knew.

.

Hi Banjo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney

There is one foundation which is not listed on your link, as this guy works anonymously. His name is Chuck Feeney who is the founder of The Atlantic Philanthropies. AP has made grants totaling more than $5 billion since 1982

Known for his frugality, Feeney flies coach class, owns neither a home nor a car, and wears a $15 watch. And he does not believe in leaving the legacy of plaques of himself.

Thanks for that, Constance. What an inspirational fellow!
I have little time for most philanthropists as, apart from their rarity relative to the large number of the wealthy, the phenomenon tends to legitimise the holding of enormous wealth and influence in single, private or corporate hands, while absolving our democratic order of responsibility, both for the gross disparity instanced and for the needy.

.

Dear Constance,

.

"Known for his frugality, Feeney flies coach class, owns neither a home nor a car, and wears a $15 watch. And he does not believe in leaving the legacy of plaques of himself."

That sounds exactly like me, Constance, but my dear wife tells me I am far too generous and that I never even look at the price of tomatoes before lining up to the cash register with a bag full. She usually pulls out a few before it's my turn.

She never misses an opportunity to remind me how badly I shocked the farmer's wife, ten years ago, when I told her to keep the change (four cents) for a billycan of fresh cow's milk. It's true that I was totally unconscious at the time of how disrespectful that was, considering the fierce battles and prolonged strikes and hardships that entailed for the farmers and their families, just to obtain an extra three cents a litre for their milk.

Though Feeney and I apparently share the same lifestyles, it's amusing to see that he is known for his frugality and me for my generosity (or should I say stupidity?).

.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

I guess you can't blame philanthropists for all those egoists (who, by the way, are not just to be found among the wealthy).

I sometimes wonder what I should do if I won the lottery. I think it would be quite a quandary. Should I keep it, invest it, spend it or give it away?

Should I just donate it to the State as unearned income tax? Would that be the best move from an ethical point of view?

Perhaps it would, but I have a little suspicion nagging in my brain that makes me hesitate.

I can't help feeling that if I did that, part of the money would simply go to feeding the voracious administrative "beast" of all those highly educated, elite public servants from the top universities and "grandes écoles" (here in France) with their enviable salaries and multiple advantages in kind, who tend to look down on me and treat me as some obnoxious little twit who just walked through the door.

In addition, I am not entirely convinced that all the funds I might happen to donate would be distributed in what I (or anybody else, for that matter) should consider to be the most equitable fashion.

This process of gradual loss and depletion of initial capital as it passes through the mincing machine of multiple hands is well known to economists. They call it "friction". The more complex the circuit, the greater the "friction".

You are never better served than by yourself, so they say. And, if you do it yourself, of course, you avoid "friction".

Not to worry, though. The problem will never arise anyway. I never buy lottery tickets.

.

Banjo Paterson,

It doesn't take too much to be generous no matter where you are positioned in life's game of roulette.

In the impersonal atmosphere of the big supermarkets, amidst the hustle and bustle, it's less likely you'll experience a true generosity of spirit, but not impossible. All it takes is for you to let the person with a few items ahead of you in the line to have them effusively turn to you with thanks and appreciation - it's always a buzz to do that, as it is to receive it.

We had loads of tomatoes, cucumbers, etc from our garden this year, so have enjoyed the opportunity to give the excess away to friends and family. My mum lives in a retirement home, and last week I led her out to our wheelbarrow which was half-full will gorgeous ripe tomatoes. I handed her a few bags and told her to fill them up for herself and her cronies at the village......'twas great to see the tommies going to a good home.

I think the sort sharing one experiences outside the usual highly organised and regulated world of commerce is where you find people really interacting on a human scale. My mum makes us date slices and goes home with cucumber relish and bags of tomatoes - my friend brings me home grown onions and goes home with a rock melon.

Good feelings all round : )

Meant to say that mum's place is like a little village where they all have their own units. They are all independent, and cook and share amongst themselves. Hardly a day goes by when they're not giving each other something and receiving in return.

Needless to say, they're a pretty happy bunch where she lives.

Hi Squeers,

Yes, Chuck is a pretty extraordinary man. Wish there were more like him. He has a close affiliation with Australia through a close friendship he had with the Australian tennis player, Ken Fletcher, and so apparently spends 2mths in Brisbane each year. He is Australia's biggest philanthropist and has recently donated $10 million to Australia's premiere HIV research institute, the Kirby Institute - that is named after the barrister, Michael Kirby. How's that for humility, he didn't call it after himself.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3182173.htm

.

Dear Constance and Squeers,

.

Thanks for your link, Constance. I immediately recognized that watch on Feeney's wrist. It's a Casio like mine. And he's right: it does keep excellent time. But it also has a lot of gadgets I never use.

In the interview, the reporter says: "Chuck Feeney met on Sunday with the Prime Minister and a group of entrepreneurs to discuss ways Australia could build a culture of philanthropy."

Why should they meet with the Prime Minister to talk about that?

Probably because the Prime Minister is chairman of the PMCBP (Prime Minister's Community-Business Partnership) set up by John Howard in 1999 to: "encourage greater corporate and personal philanthropy in Australia".

That little effort (establishment and administration of the PMCBP) cost taxpayers $13 million at the time.

So they probably talked about tax incentives and also cooperation between the public and private sectors in providing services both to the public and also to each other.

There was an excellent article published on this subject in The Economist of 9th June 2012 entitled "Sweetened charity":

http://www.economist.com/node/21556570

In my humble opinion, public and private services should be allowed to coexist and cooperate with each other harmoniously. Certainly, funds are not unlimited, so there is necessarily a degree of competition between the two but they are also very much complementary.

The public sector tends, far too often, to be a monumental gas works, lacking in reactivity and efficiency. It tends to crush rather than caress and is rarely a model of sympathy and humanity.

It also has a high rate of "friction" compared to the private sector. Whatever is put into the mouth of the "beast" comes out, a long time later, in small quantities and several stages, totally digested, transformed, depleted and unrecognizable.

The private sector, of course, has the inconvenience of serving a particular type of problem or group of people rather than all the problems for everybody.

.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

The vegetables sound great. It seems you are almost self-sufficient. What about the fruit? Do you grow them too?

I can't imagine what I could exchange with you. I only have a bamboo tree and a few pot plants on the 9m2 triangular shaped balcony of my Paris apartment which slightly north of center, at the foot of Montmartre (where the expressionist painters used to hang out). It is what we Parisians call "les quartiers populaires" (which means, basically, where the plebs live).

But now that I think of it, I do have a few aromatic herbs in some of those pots. I'll take a look tomorrow morning to see how they are getting on. Last time I saw them they were covered in snow. I wouldn't count too heavily on them if I were you.

Never mind, there are many other advantages living in Paris. Life here just steps over death and carries on without batting an eyelid.

Tomorrow is another day.

.

Banjo Paterson,
I don't buy lottery tickets either.
Of course "friction" is also absolutely necessary in the capitalist order. If surplus value (capital) were merely abstracted the whole would grind to a halt. That's why there's no stability left, the system has to constantly renew itself and manufacture novelty. What semblance of cultural persistence we have tends to be institutional and ideological, rather than tangible. And these only persist thanks to globalism. It's globalisation that perpetuates the fundamental contradiction of capital--which would destroy it in a more closed system. That is, it is capital coming in from exports and foreign investment that funds the constant development and growth/materialistic-transcendence the system must have. "Friction" on its own can't do it because new capital is always needed. It can't be generated in a closed system that's reached its limits, let alone one where the surplus is abstracted. Australians are such a provincial lot enmasse, enjoying the illusion that it's all sustainable, thanks to the concept of national borders; they conceive that Australia really is removed from the rest of the world--its own private and secure interest, rofl, inverting common sense by "thinking locally and acting globally". Capitalism must continually exceed-outgrow-renew-itself to fulfil its fundamental function: distil profit. Consider; "profit", "abstracted"--not stored or husbanded, which is anathema to capitalism, but converted into capital, an abstract byproduct. Re-invested yes, but only to realise more capital--a perpetual-motion machine. Capital is not invested unless it's calculated to realise profit, and only perpetual growth (demand), on or/and off-shore, can deliver it. "Friction" is lifeblood but subject to "entropy". On that "economic" subject (which Pericles denies), the system isn't merely closed, vulnerable, resentful, its resources irregular; only a relatively small "portion", sporadically distributed, is "free"; even less, much less, is "sustainably available" in a balanced state of biological equilibrium. It's not a matter of "how much raw material is there and available? It's how much can the system spare without incurring fatal entropy? We are literally consuming our own future.

You're thinking from within the mad logic of "economic reality", Banjo, not the real, living world.

Banjo Paterson,

I'm not as self-sufficient as I seem. However, the things that I grow do serve to let me in on the value of exchanging produce as gifts. It's a nice feeling.

And you should know that I'm a tad jealous of your own environment. I, of course, would love to paint/draw Montmarte - I'm a bit short of impressive architecture in south-west WA. I'm a huge fan of the Impressionists. It's the art movement of which I'm most knowledgeable (not so knowledgeable on the Expressionists). France also holds allure in general.

The exchange of anything in kind is a fundamental joy. I think, for the most part, we've lost the human art of growing, forging, shaping and creating, and the satisfaction of "passing it on" without payment - yet intuiting the implicit promise of the gift returning in kind.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"You're thinking from within the mad logic of "economic reality", Banjo, not the real, living world"

.

The term "economy" derives from the Greek "oikonomia", domestic management.

I do not see economic activity as being divorced from "the real, living world". On the contrary, I see it as being very much a part of it. Most people spend a good deal of their time and energy on economic activity. It has always been the principal activity of mankind and probably will continue to be so for some time.

On the subject of "capital" and "capitalism", we need to make a finer analysis of the question before making any conclusions.

I compare "capital" and "capitalism" to cholesterol. According to the American Heart Association, cholesterol can't dissolve in the blood. It has to be transported to and from the cells by carriers called lipoproteins. Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, is known as "bad" cholesterol. High-density lipoprotein, or HDL, is known as "good" cholesterol.

Short term, liquid capital is "bad", non-productive, capital ... and long term, invested capital is "good", productive capital.

There is "good" and "bad" capitalism.

An even closer scrutiny reveals that many capitalists cumulate and/or alternate both "good" and "bad" modes of functioning.

In periods of slow economic growth, prudence dictates that investors remain "liquid" and avoid tying up their money in long term investments of which the issue is uncertain (due to what economists call "lack of visibility").

The problem is that there are just as many "heart specialists" as there are national "patients". They all basically agree on the diagnosis but not all patients are at the same stage of development of the illness, some are more resistant than others, what works for one does not work for others, etc.

There is no, simple, universal solution for an economic problem with global repercussions. An intelligent coordinated approach is probably the best we can do. There are multiple variables to be considered, among which the most important, naturally, is the effect on ordinary people.

For more on "friction", I recommend this article:

http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/how-much-of-the-economy-is-friction/2011/11/11

.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

"The exchange of anything in kind is a fundamental joy. I think, for the most part, we've lost the human art of growing, forging, shaping and creating, and the satisfaction of "passing it on" without payment - yet intuiting the implicit promise of the gift returning in kind."

.

Those truly are words of wisdom, Poirot. Though, I must confess I have, unfortunately, found myself obliged, all too often, during the never ending struggle for life here in Paris, to take heed of this philosophical principle as a constant warning that "there is no such thing as a free lunch"

Having failed to have done so on several occasions (being an inveterately slow learner) has had some extremely unpleasant consequences.

As for the impressionist painters, they too are very present in our Parisian environment as you can imagine. I always have Renoir in mind whenever I choose a florist, in my perpetual quest for the ideal bouquet of flowers for my wife's birthday. But never have I found anything in real life that resembles his masterpiece.

A glitter of fear invariably flickers across the eyes of the poor florists each time I dare formulate my request for a generous bouquet of gentle, pastel coloured flowers "à la Renoir".

And it is with a somewhat embarrassed look on both sides that I am usually forced to concede, on leaving the boutique, that the task was almost impossible to realise but that she (the florist) had, nevertheless, managed to compose something really quite beautiful and excuisitely original.

.

Banjo Paterson,

When I first came upon the Impressionists, I was amazed and enchanted. I still feel an uncommon attraction when I look at an Impressionist painting.

Did you know that Renoir learned his craft of rendering the delicacy of women's faces (as only he can do) by painting china early on (or some such utilitarian apprenticeship).

My favourite is Monet (and I would love to see Giverny)http://giverny.org/monet/welcome.htm

Have you read Irving Stone's "Depths of Glory"?
It tells the story of Impressionism, following the life of Camille Pissarro.....it's very good for gleaning an understanding of the life and times of the movement.

I loved your description of you and the Parisian florists - would make a good short story - perhaps with a hidden message : )

Banjo Paterson,
semantics.
Economy, thrift etc. are good things, but our economic reality is based on no such thing.
I put inverted commas around "economic reality" to indicate its abstract quality. I should have also said "our" economic reality, Or "political economy". Obviously I wasn't referring to economy per se. Can't you see how capitalism structures your thinking? Not just yours, but virtually everyone's; the evidence against capitalism is damning and no one is denying it's culturally and environmentally rapacious and unsustainable, yet you go on defending it to the hilt, because you just can't comprehend the possibility of something different, a different way of life. But more to the point because you (I mean all those who defend it) don't like the implication that a condemnation of capitalism is a condemnation of each one of us and of everything we hold as sacred. It's personal. We are forced either to accept that our institutional lives are qualitatively impoverished at best, and bought too dearly, indeed are are morally indefensible, or to deny it and go on defending the indefensible.
Exactly the same phenomenon obtains apropos AGW; the evidence is absolutely clear and damning, yet the so-called denialists continue swearing black is white. Their denialism has nothing to do with healthy scepticism, but is based purely on a manic drive to justify all that which they grew up to believe was good and right and proper. They don't even compromise, they refuse to accept anything's amiss; 'tis all as God or evolution intended, they rationalise.
But I give up. Whatever.

I meant to say "the so-called sceptics" not "denialists". They flatter themselves with the appellation "sceptic", just as defenders of our devastating political economy flatter themselves that they're capable of thinking outside the square at all. They're just mouthing ideology, a spurious self-defence.

Even capitalism, as durable, flexible and adaptable as it has proven itself to be over the centuries, may have trouble wriggling out of this conundrum:

"The final fact is that the petroleum era has come to its end. Petroleum will continue to be available for many decades but always in lesser quantities and in the end it will become a luxury good. Our epoch of accelerated economic development based on inexpensive petroleum is already over. It is the sunset of petroleum. And if we are unable to recognize it, it could also very well be our own."

from The Twilight of Petroluem:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-02-05/the-twilight-of-petroleum

If capitalism is a 'grow or die' system, and growth (in GDP terms) is no longer possible for reasons including declining supplies of affordable energy to maintain and run the infrastructure on which the system depends, then what is the future of capitalism? And for those of us living within its logic (or under its thumb, or whip...)?

We need (amongst other things) a different means to measure societal progress other than GDP, hence the intervention of Eisenstein and growing numbers of others, e.g. http://postgrowth.org/

Here's Charles Eisenstein speaking about the crumbling of the conventional mythologies (economics, Newtonian physics, established religions) and the emerging 'New Story of the World', supported by quantum physics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjoxh4c2Dj0&feature=player_embedded

Amongst other things he highlights the importance of seemingly 'small acts' of kindness, caring and sharing.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

I don't think you should give up - at least, not yet.

I understand your frustration. I sympathise with you and share your concerns.

All your criticisms seem to me to be perfectly justified. You are obviously referring to "bad" capitalism.

However, things are not quite so simple. There is also "good", or "virtuous" capitalism whose existence should not be denied. Who would argue, today, that we were better off under the feudal and tribal systems which it took capitalism over 600 years to eradicate and replace?

As Martin Wolf, pointed out : in years 1000–1820 world economy grew sixfold, 50% per person. After capitalism spread in years 1820–1998 world economy grew 50-fold, i.e., 9-fold per person. In most capitalist economic regions the economy grew 19-fold per person and in Japan, which was poor in 1820, to 31-fold. In the rest of the world growth was only 5-fold per person.

World Bank statistics indicate that the global poverty rate, which stood at 25 percent in 2005, is decreasing, lifting around 70 million people – the population of Turkey or Thailand – out of destitution annually.

It is evident that despite the eminently equitable qualities of Karl Marx's proposed alternative economic model, it simply does not work. For it to work, mankind would need to change radically and adapt to the model. That can only be achieved by force.

I, personally cannot see that happening, even in the most catastrophic scenarios for the future of capitalism.

In fact, we seem to be headed in the opposite direction. The worst is probably yet to come in the form of State capitalism as practiced by China and some of the oil rich countries.

So, what do we do? Get rid of capitalism? How? Fire a salvo of bazooka at it? What do we replace it with?

A realistic option could be to favour and encourage "good" capitalism and severely discourage, control, restrict and penalise "bad" capitalism, which is the cause of all our problems.

Laser surgery would certainly cause much less collateral damage than a bazooka.

.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

I can understand your passion for Claude Monet.

Not only was he a great painter but, as I am sure you know, he was a personal friend of Georges Clemenceau, the French Prime minister who led France to victory during World War I and set up the Treaty of Versailles.

Clemenceau spent what little spare time he had in the company of Monet and rushed to his good friend's death bed where the painter died in his arms.

I have visited Giverny on several occasions over the years, often accompanying visiting friends, relations and overseas visitors. The best time to visit it, of course, is in the Spring when all the flowers are in bloom. Though best to arrive early in the morning before opening - before the bus loads of Japanese tourists arrive.

As a matter of interest, I happen to have, hanging on the wall of my toilet in my Paris apartment, a large reproduction of Henri Matisse's painting "Open window" which he painted in Collioure on the Côte d'Azur (French Riviera) in 1905.

It is quite relaxing to just sit and contemplate it, which, as you can imagine, is what I do regularly.

However, for reasons I don't quite understand myself, my favourite painter is Maurice Utrillo whose mother, Suzanne Valadon, was also a painter. Nobody knows for sure who his father was. Suzanne thought it might have been either Renoir or Degas, but she finally found another painter by the name of Miguel Utrillo who accepted that she name the boy after him.

Utrillo painted the streets of Montmartre. He was born on the rue du Poteau, just around the corner from where I live. He was a heavy drinker of absinthe, a pretty rugged green alcohol, which has since been outlawed. He died at the ripe old age of 70 and was buried in the Montmartre cemetery. He was known as the man of Montmartre.

I'm afraid I have not read Irving Stone's "Depths of Glory" but it sounds interesting and shall keep an eye out for it.

.

Banjo Paterson,
there is no "good" or "virtuous" capitalism in a closed system or an ethical order respectively (are these points too economical? If so you may flesh them out by rereading my posts above). Capitalism is not merely trade and barter. It is devoted to generating wealth via the systemic cultivation of capital.
"Who would argue, today, that we were better off under the feudal and tribal systems"?
No one, least of all Marx, who had mixed admiration for capitalism and the bourgeois revolution--which was just as shocking to the old world as communism seems to moderns (read the link to Matthew Arnold above). But it amounts merely to a higher, more diverse order of inequality and tyranny. Howevermuch that charge is denied, the more damning one is it's unsustainable.
So spare me the stats; exponential growth doesn't equate to quality, contentment and balance, any more than the frenzy of a mouse plague does.
Marx didn't propose alternative economic models, he inferred that just as feaudalism broke-down into the bourgeoisie, so would it ultimately atomise into communism. Egalitarianism was for Marx human society's abiding tendency, via a kind of "punctuated equilibrium".
I've already expressed my pessimism above that we can change hegemonically, or that anything could take capitalism's place overnight without devastation. Devastation seems inevitable--indeed vital to humanity in the long run.
Idealism will not quash capitalism unless it is embraced en masse, and that won't happen until the system fails. There's nothing like starvation to focus the mind, which under capitalism is blissfully diverted. This is a failure of democracy; its failure to act decisively. Humanity's future would be more secure under a wise and benevolent monarch (unfortunately a rare and changeable beast). I've said before, we should be using computer technology; put in all the data--economic, ethical and environmental--and follow the recommended course of action. I've no doubt the first item would be to dismantle political economy.

Banjo Paterson,

It's interesting that you mention your reproduction of "Open Window". Last year I went with my daughter and son up to the WA Art Gallery for an exhibiton of paintings from MoMA in New York. There were quite a few by Matisse - and the one which caught my eye was "Interior with a Violin Case", which as you probably know, is also a view out of an open window with interior in the foreground. This painting, for me, was the highlight of the exhibition.

We were able to get up fairly close and personal to the paintings, and I enjoyed particularly Matisses' colourful flourishes so lightly and freely daubed.

Picasso and Warhol paintings were also on view amongst many other "moderns". Regarding Warhol's Campbell Soup Tins: I had heard that it was executed employing some kind of printing technique, and I was able to stand right up close - and I could see the faint pencil lines around the words on the tins, so it seemed to me that they were painted....but the Matisse paintings stood out for me because of the colour, style and composition.

Yes, I've seen some of Utrillo's work.....and do you know Degas' "The Absinthe Drinker"?

.

Dear Squeers,

.

"Capitalism is not merely trade and barter."
.
Agreed. "Good" capitalism finances the three sectors of the economy:
- agriculture, fishing, and extraction of raw materials (primary),
- manufacturing (secondary),
- services (tertiary).
.

" It (capitalism) is devoted to generating wealth via the systemic cultivation of capital."
.
True - however, this is where the cleavage occurs between "good" and "bad" capitalism. Both generate wealth but the first has a positive effect on the economy and the second has a negative effect:

- the first, through long term productive investments (in partnership with the economic actors, accompanying them in their endeavours),

- the second through short term speculative investments (with no involvement in any economic activity).

It is the role and responsibility of the government to collect and redistribute excess wealth. In Australia the "marginal" tax rate (tax rate applied to highest bracket of income) is 45%. In France it is 75% (socialist government).

.

"exponential growth doesn't equate to quality, contentment and balance, any more than the frenzy of a mouse plague does."
.
I prefer to reserve my judgment on that. I wonder what those 70 million people who are lifted out of destitution each year have to say about it.

.

"Idealism will not quash capitalism unless it is embraced en masse ..."

I am not sure it is a good idea for idealism to get the upper hand in any human activity. I feel more comfortable assigning the moralistic "super-ego" the sole task of counter-balancing the impulsive "id" and letting the "ego" take the decisions.

Idealism in its raw state tends to be a little too close to intolerance for my liking.

As a final remark, please allow me to say that I have no axe to grind on the subject under discussion. I have an open mind and am receptive to any facts, arguments or opinions which may improve my vision.

Many thanks for your input, Squeers. I appreciate it.

.

Banjo Paterson,
I can't agree that there is a good capitalism, the logic is the same and primary industries existed before capitalism. We are only indebted to capitalism for overproduction and unsustainable population growth, those you designate "lifted out of poverty", are the byproduct--as if the 7 billion, or the 70 million a year were there all along waiting to be rescued!
I wonder what the 70 million a year will say when they're left high and dry?
If idealism doesn't get the upper hand, over ideology, then capitalism will lead us to a far worse fate than those who would undermine it.

But many thanks to you too, especially for bearing my sometimes brusque responses so gracefully.
In my own defence I can only submit that serious debates are best waged without affectation, and I'm so used to running into brick walls here I tend to use a sledge hammer--to no avail I fear.

Am looking at your you tube link, Nick, and thanks for all the extra material you've provided. I think we're mainly on-song.

No problems Squeers.

I stayed up late last night and watched this very sobering presentation by a US Professor Emeritus of natural resources, ecology and evolutionary biology - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ina16XSJQvM - a good chunk of it deals with the latest (as at Nov 2012) science on AGW. It really is disturbing how far past the point of no return we appear to be. And yet the capitalist juggernaut barrels on regardless, seeing 'profit opportunities' at every turn, such as 'emissions trading'.

The presenter, Guy McPherson, concludes that the only hope (and it's by now a fairly small one) of avoiding catastrophic AGW is total global economic collapse. The 'good news', according to McPherson, is that such a collapse seems fairly likely.

.

Dear Nick,

.

Re: "The Twilight of Petroluem":

Antonio Turiel, the author of the article you posted, confirms what I guess just about everybody (including a perfect neophyte like me) has understood for a number of years now.

That's why we've got so many of these ugly wind farms ruining the environment just about everywhere around the world these days. It's why we've got acres and acres of solar panels all over our rooftops and huge photovoltaic power stations. It's also why we've got huge sea and ocean wave power farms, in addition to the hydro-electric power stations we already had, operating out of dams stretched across our rivers.

Paradoxically, what is news to me is that Turiel's very first graph indicates that the overall supply of petroleum is increasing. I thought it was diminishing!

He writes: "Petroleum will continue to be available for many decades but always in lesser quantities ...". That's odd. His graph indicates exactly the contrary.

It shows an overall increase in supply from 78 p/qw (whatever that means) in the year 2000, to 100 p/qw in the year 20035. He does not indicate what happens after that. As the curve continues to increase, my guess is ...

That does not prevent him from concluding, without the slightest inkling of a doubt: "The final fact is that the petroleum era has come to its end."

Something wrong with the logic there!

Is that the conundrum you had in mind?

You also indicate: "We need (amongst other things) a different means to measure societal progress other than GDP, hence the intervention of Eisenstein and growing numbers of others, e.g.

http://postgrowth.org/.

That is what seems to have inspired Bhutan's fourth Dragon King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, just over 40 years ago, in 1972, when he launched the GNH (Gross National Happiness) as a replacement for GDP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

A little later, the GPI (Gross Progress Indicator) was elaborated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_Progress_Indicator

Your "Post Growth" friends seek "global prosperity that don’t rely on economic growth". My dictionary says "prosperity" means "success, good fortune, especially in financial respects"... Is that not capitalism?

.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

I'm afraid I'm not a fan of Andy Warhol and pop art. It tends to repulse me. It corresponds to an aspect of "modern" society I have always disliked. Nor do I like Francis Bacon's paintings which remind me of horror films.

I think you are right: Andy Warhol reproduced such a large number of his Campbell Soup Tins painting, they covered an entire wall of the exhibition hall.

Coming back to your favourites, the Impressionists, I must say that, to my mind, they are the only artists who captured nature in a perfectly recognisable form and embellished it.

Their paintings are always far more beautiful than the reality they depict. They are an improvement on nature. They radiate well-being, harmony, calm and serenity.

In increasing order of natural beauty, in my opinion, photographs take third position, nature second and impressionist paintings, the number one position.

The amazing thing is, the Impressionist painters were, generally speaking, a fairly ugly lot. Most of them lived on a pittance and struggled to survive. They certainly did not radiate health, wealth and happiness. Yet their paintings are beautiful and immensely optimistic - a sort of garden of Eden.

I thought I should point this out so that you would not be too disappointed not to visit Claude Monet's Giverny. Please be assured his paintings are much more beautiful than reality.

.

.

Daer Squeers,

.

Capitalism is a relatively recent term, coined in the mid-19th century, during the industrial revolution, from a much older word, "capital".

There were many "isms" invented at about that time, socialism and communism, for example, Darwinism a little later on. An "ism" was added to a root word in order to designate a related system, theory, or practice.

The term "capital" derives from the Latin "capitalis" (of the head) which later became, in Medieval Latin, "capitale" (wealth), an accumulation of money or property.

Any accumulation of money or property is capital. A person who possesses capital is a capitalist.

Although they were not known as such until the mid-19th century, both "capitalism" and "capitalists" have existed ever since the Neolithic Age, 12 000 years ago, when small, mobile groups of hunter-gatherers joined with others in the Agricultural Revolution which modified their life-styles completely.

They became sedentary village and town dwellers developing specialised food-crop cultivation and irrigation methods which allowed extensive surplus food production.

They had invented capitalism and became the world's first capitalists without knowing it.

This is one example, among many, of what I call "good" capitalism. I submit it to you for consideration. It continues to exist today and I see no reason to wish to discontinue it. To throw it out with the rest of capitalism is to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I hope your idealism does not oblige you to do that, Squeers.

Integrating it into some other system under a different appelation would hardly alter the fact that it is a form of capitalism.

.

Banjo Paterson,

I agree with you about Warhol - I'm not a fan of modern art either.

Although our trip up to the art gallery to view these works was an opportunity to see works than we wouldn't ordinarily have access to. It was odd to be able to stand inches away from paintings by Picasso and Warhol and many others - and as I said there were quite a few by Matisse also.

Yes, I gleaned that the Impressionists managed to "improve" on nature. I once wrote an essay on the swerve from the Apollonian definite lines of the studio painters who preceded the Impressionists, to the hazy Dionysian works of the Impressionists That's why it took so long for them to allowed into the major exhibitions at the time. They had to break through the established "club" to gain acceptance. (try and catch up with Irving Stone's book. It's written as a story, as he did with Michelangelo in the "The Agony and the Ecstasy" and on Van Gogh in "Lust For Life")

There was also a band of Australian Impressionists - and their works are beautiful also.

Thanks for the chat.

Dear Banjo

Please read all of the Twilight of Petroleum article. The graphs become progressively less rosy (no pun intended!) as you go down the page, and some of the assumptions on which the first graph is based are held up for critical examination. The last graph paints a very different picture to the first, and supports the conclusion.

Regarding 'prosperity without growth', it depends on what is meant by prosperity. If you define it principally in financial terms, then you might reach the conclusion that it is achieved via capitalism (but really only for a few). If you adopt a more expansive definition of flourishing and thriving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity), then such a state is possible without the narrow focus on profit and economic (i.e. monetary) gain - indeed many would say it is more likely in the absence of such a focus.

.

Dear Nick,

.

I'm sorry but Turiel's demonstration is about as clear as mud to me.

I admit I may be a bit too obtuse to understand so do not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong.

It seems to me that you rightly point out: " ... some of the assumptions on which the first graph is based are held up for critical examination. The last graph paints a very different picture to the first, and supports the conclusion."

Agreed. But how do we get from the first graph to the last?

Turiel explains, right from the outset, how to get from one to the other:

"The forecasts of the IEA (the first graph) contain certain elements which are at the very least “slightly optimistic” ..."

He then operates a certain number of corrections which he considers necessary.

But, not only does he "correct" the forecasts, he also "corrects" the past.

He "corrects" all the figures, right from the start, in the year 2000. Does this mean that Turiel is looking at "forecasts" for the year 2000 in 2013 (13 years later)?

His article was published on Feb 5, 2013.

It leaves me with the unpleasant impression that Turiel has slapped his mathematical model on the IEA's figures indiscriminately, not bothering to check what the supply actually was going back to the year 2000.

Surely it must now be known, including by the IEA, if the petroleum supply in the year 2000 was 78 p/qw (as in the first graph) or 62 p/qw as in the last graph.

How can we be any more confident in Turiel's last graph and conclusions than the first graph of the IEA?

If you have any ideas on the question, I should be happy to hear them.

.