I've always supported the feminist cause and welcomed criticism of patriarchal culture. But lately I find myself frustrated by the fairer sex. In my experience they're the loudest critics of feminism; there the ones I see on the News, patriotically coddled in the flag--effectively censoring criticism of Australia's military roles, or of militarism in general; they're the ones who monopolise and thereby fuel the consumer culture that's destroying the planet; they're the ones who seem to go in for religion at its twee nonsensical worst. And where are the female intellectual radicals working "outside" culture; the only ones I know of spend their time proving that the system can't be overturned. Are there any genuine female anarchists out there? I'm not for anarchy (too messy), but I am for anarchic discourse. Can anyone restore my faith in women? Are they movers and shakers? Or are they the perennial preeners and peace-maker?

Dear Sqeers,

I don't recognise the women you're
describing in your opening post.

The women I know are highly individualistic.
They explore a wide variety of roles.
Most of the women I know combine a career
with a family, and their individual human qualities,
rather than their biological sex is the
primary measure of their worth and
achievement. Today, the women I know have the
liberty to choose their own path to self-fulfillment.

As for pulling their radical weight?
The women I know have always done that.

Ok so I asked my husband to get the truth.

Me: Honey I am radical?
Him : OH YEAH, then started laughing for 5 minutes before adding the qualifier "in the traditional sense".

So I am Trad Rad and mad!

I share an interest in feminism. I find myself increasing disgusted with the hordes of women who are happy to accept the benefits of feminism and may even call themself feminist, yet they define feminism in a way that costs them nothing. Accordingly, they define feminism as being about choice and self-confidence. Choice means doing whatever they want and complimenting other women, no matter what they do. Self-confidence means telling people what they want to hear.

Choices have contexts and consequences. I have more respect for models of feminism analyse why women make particular choices and what the consequences of that choice will be. It is hard for someone to be all that they can be if they are making dumb choices. Certain problems cannot be resolved if women don't consider the impact of their choices. Over-inflating people's self-esteem can set them up to fail and provides little incentive for self improvement.

One of the original aims of feminism was to undermine paternalism, where women were thought to need to be sheltered. This obsession with self-esteem and applauding all choices is just as over-protective.

I am as confused as Foxy on this post. I haven't met any of the sorts of women who Sqeers and Benk seem to know of.

Sqeers, on the one hand you say that women are "..effectively censoring criticism of Australia's military roles, or of militarism in general;"
and on the other hand you ask "... Or are they the perennial preeners and peace-maker?"

Those comments just go to show the very diverse opinions of women in Australia, whether they are for or against feminism. They are as different as the opinions men have as well, so what exactly are you trying to say?

Ah then suzeonline and foxy you need to get out more, mix with the sisters.
See they see the problem is women enjoying life, being free to be what they want to be.
The sisters often have that tattoo on their arms you know the one, female with a warfies arms.
Fact is yes in matters they are concerned about ,understand women lead as often as men.
History is full of female opinion leaders.
But let us never forget, the idea if they do not follow others ideas they are failures is silly.

Squeers, interesting topic. I suspect that what you're noticing is the product of evolution in action. The vast majority of females of most primate species, including humans, have a vested interest in maintaining a stable status quo, simply in order to foster a safe environment for her while she is gestating or has a child at the breast. It is a queer female indeed who chooses to create instability and internecine disharmony and the rest will let her know in no uncertain terms that they don't approve.

The triumph of feminism is that it has managed to pull off both a radical reorganisation of society and avoid this female disapprobation. Its failure is that it has taken little cognisance of male response, since that is far more likely to be diverse and fragmented and hence easily ignored in a world in which power is granted by 50% of a vote. One never hears of the "male vote", but the "female vote" is widely regarded as being responsible for the rise of Kevin Rudd and for making Tony Abbott unelectable.

By making domestic violence and family law matters central to the radical feminist agenda of the 70s and 80s, the queer radicals bought off the conservative women with a promise of security, in return for which they were rewarded with a mandate for their more disruptive agenda, which was a naked grab for "power without glory" as Frank Hardy so eloquently described an earlier era in which self-serving ideologues ruled.

Where are the radicals today? They're where they wanted to be - in charge of social policy and largely in charge of the power structures, especially those on the Left. As for the rest, they're still clinging to the trunk of the tree of society, wondering why they don't feel as safe as they were promised they would be and waiting for Big Sister to hand out the next free lunch.

It is a wonder women have not as yet woken up to the fact that they have the power and should use it and insist on it. One of the other posters on this thread, repeats the myth that a vote every three years is all anyone is entitled to. On a website I access regularly, is a piece on equality for women. Its here and I recommend it to all women who want equality, and those radical men who believe they should have equality. This is the link.

http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=458

On that website also is a Royal Identifier, the same one that was affixed to every Act of Parliament before the wild and wooly leftist fringe took it off every Act, systematically and effectively destroying the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is an entity lifted directly from the Authorised King James Version of the Holy Bible, and was created by affixing a Royal Identifier to a Proclamation made at the Palace in 1900. The Act was required to be sealed with a Royal Identifier, and the Master of the Rolls, fixed it to the Act in 1900. That Act created a United Nation out of a fractious and uncooperative collection of colonies. It was a compact between all Christian sects in Australia, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist Presbyterian, Seventh Day Adventist, and all the others and the vote in 1900, was the same as the proportion of Christians to others, reflected in the last census.

In many cases there are more women than men in Church. The backbone of many congregations are the wonderful women, and when Kevin Rudd wanted to be Prime Minister, he courted the Christian vote. His prayer to be elected was heard by 200,000 Christian voters who went to their Church, to hear a debate between him and JH. The Christian women of Australia just could not vote for an Atheist in 2004. Until it was made plain Latham was an atheist, he was leading in the polling by the same margin as stuck to Kevin. It is this year a head to head between two Christian leaders

I was careful to say that this criticism of women is based on "my" experience; I don't extrapolate that to encompass all women, I merely ask to be disabused. I start with the premise that our current system is bad. Capitalism is exploitative and rapacious, and can never attain to equality within its closed global precincts; boom and bust, devastation of the planet, and ultimately total collapse, is written in capitalism's DNA. Now the conspicuous consumption of men in rich countries is probably just as unconscionable as women's, but at least there's a representative cohort of male critics. Count the number of female anti-capitalists here, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism. In my experience, women evince no disquiet whatsoever about commodity culture, they're too busy getting fulfilled (that is, duped) within it.
Similarly patriotism; in my view it masks a host of evils by insulating military involvement from just criticism. Who are the female Noam Chomskys? Institutionalised religion is another fibre in the indestructible fabric of hegemony, but where are the prominent female critics of the church?
But no need to go on, I agree with Antiseptic. Perhaps the female psyche is the toughest fibre of all in the hemp of hegemon?
Suzieonline, I don't think there's any contradiction in my rhetorical question about women above.
I want to have these subjective notions exploded.
Who are the female visionaries, and what do they stand for?

Squeers, what you're saying is very important and I think essentially correct - often wondered very similar things myself (alluded to in a recent post somewhere).

I haven't got time to respond properly just now, but will do when I get home from work.

Women have not been pulling their radical weight, because most people do not really know what a radical is. A free radical is what we should all be, but while women tolerate inequality, and a male dominated Satanic State Culture, where the State has become the dominant Church, just as it was in the failed Soviet Union, and Third Reich, we will be the poorer for it. .

The removal of the Royal Seal from all Acts of Parliament, and the requirement that all Acts pass a third hurdle before they are in reality law, was a Radical step taken by the English to keep the bastards they elected to Parliament honest. It was radical because the root or basic law of England was and remains the law, as published in the Holy Bible, Legitimate Statute Law reflected the Holy Bible in every way, even down to banning lawyers from the Commons House of Parliament in England for 498 years.

Most women in their Churches don’t realize that they are part of the great silent majority, and their power for good far exceeds that of most politicians. As women have been enfranchised, so the system has disenfranchised both men and women, so that elected representatives have formed the belief that they can do pretty much as they please, provided they control a majority in Parliament. This brainwashing extends to most people by way of the media. It is totally wrong, and leads to absolute corruption.

As women have become better educated, many have joined the ranks of the legal profession. Most women value honesty and integrity. Any man who cheats on his woman will swiftly find that out. When I did law at Uni 80% of the class were women. They considered me a radical, because I questioned the way we were being taught. One of my fellow males, formerly an engineer, said it was engineers who put them there, because engineers freed women from drudgery. Jesus Christ was in reality a social engineer, whose system has stood the test of time, since 1297. Women need to become more radical

Women are probably (dare I say) 'natural' peacemakers probably for those traditional reasons as Antiseptic points out ie. stable environments for child raising.

However, while men dominate the more radical discourse with regards to politics, capitalism and consumerism in the public arena there are certainly many ordinary women, even on OLO, who have discussed the detriments of capitalism, depedency on growth economics and consumerism.

There are some high profile women who stand out such as Sharon Burrow of the ACTU and a few Greens politicians just on top of my head but I am sure there are more. Mind you no strong radical male voice comes straight to mind either so maybe the radical discourse has diminished overall with only recent murmurings due to the GFC.

History shows that men tend to lead revolutionary movements but women have certainly been part of those causes. The French Resistance included many women and Guevara had many women alongside.

Perhaps it is when the stability of family is threatened by an oppressive regime that women will choose the radical path to protect that stability in the long term.

As for generalisations about feminists well many feminists have argued that true equality can only be realised when men are also equal in terms of choice. Remember it is still women primarily who are at home raising the kids and men who earn the highest salaries. Personally I don't really care about that, it is up to individuals and families to work out what works best for them.

To some extent the feminist movement has created other problems which is not unusual. Change can bring about many unforseen problems. What is seen as a solution to one problem may create a whole new network of other issues - it happens in government policy all the time. The biggest effect has been what do we do with the children? They seem to have been forgotten in the whole equality equation among a flurry of contrary opinons about home care versus institutionalised care all peppered with a lot of self interest most of the time.

seems like hairy armpits and unshaven legs are out.

I share your concerns, Squeers, and have voiced similar opinions here on OLO at various times.

As Pelican pointed out though, radical voices - both male and female - are thin on the ground. If they are out there, they're in effect silenced through the dominance of corporate controlled media.

Women in Australia that come to mind are Sharran Burrow, as mentioned by Pelican, Sharon Beder and the Greens' Christine Milne, Rachel Siewart and Sarah Hanson-Young and we've also had Jenny George, Carmen Lawrence and Natasha Stott-Despoya, but I agree they are generally few and far between. We still have Germaine of course, but her influence in Australia is now reasonably limited. I can't think of female journalists or musos I'd describe as radical, but again male radicals in these fields are rare now too, unless you specifically seek them out. I guess there are still female academics who hold radical views, but their voices aren't generally heard in mainstream media. Internationally, we have Arundhati Roy and Naomi Klein and prior to their deaths we had Susan Sontag and Anita Roddick. There are many strong female activists in India and other developing countries. Their fine words though are lost in the wind before reaching Western shores.

Antiseptic

<< The triumph of feminism is that it has managed to pull off both a radical reorganisation of society ... >>

What radical reorganization? I haven't seen any.

The problem I've always had with most modern day feminists is, having broken the glass ceiling, they've discarded any previous radical inclinations and settled down alongside their male counterparts to protect their personal share of the pie. Long gone are formerly held notions of sharing that pie more equally or of the dire ecological consequences of continually 'growing' that pie. The advent of feminism might have broken down the old male hegemony, but it's done nothing to challenge the dominance of androcentric values which still dictate that dog-eat-dog capitalism should rule the earth.

Squeers

<< ... they're the ones I see on the News, patriotically coddled in the flag--effectively censoring criticism of Australia's military roles, or of militarism in general ... >>

I agree, where are the women's voices speaking up against the power of militarism over Western democracy and lamenting the pointless deaths of their sons or the trillions spent on weaponry? Where are the women wailing at Obama's "Just war" sell-out?

Sadly to say, I think they've gone shopping. :)

Gee, Squeers, if you're looking for that kind of feminine activist within Australia at the moment, you're probably going to find they are fairly thin on the ground.
Overseas, however, there are a few that come to mind like Vandana Shiva and Arundhati Roy in India - both of whom have a respected international standing.
In Canada there is Naomi Klein who is a genuine anti-globalization activist.
These women would definitely be classified as the female equivalent of Noam Chomsky.
I have an acquaintance who used to lead the Green Party in her country (an advanced western democracy). She decided that she had a much louder voice by returning to her profession as a publisher and magazine editor, and as such she consistently pipes up and questions her government's motives. She is very good at what she does.
I must admit, though, that I am straining to think of an example of that sort of female activist with Australia

Bronwyn:"What radical reorganization? I haven't seen any. "

I have a feeling that you don't see much at all, Bronnie. As the old proverb says, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Just to help you look, here's a small list of aspects of society that have endured massive change thanks to Feminist ideology:

Education: women now dominate every aspect of education, both as providers and consumers. At present, about 2/3 of Asutralian-origin tertiary students are female and that is increasing.

Health: women now dominate at every level in the health sector, with the possible exception of senior doctors. At para-professional and junior professional level women are massively dominant. Funding for women's health services outstrips that for men by several multiples, even though men have always have poorer health outcomes than women, especially premature mortality.

Bureaucracy: women now form the vast bulk of the clerical public-service workforce, including at senior level.

Unions: women dominate the ACTU thanks to their dominance of the white-collar public sector unions, especially health and education. It is unlikely we will see a man elected to the President or secretary roles for the foreseeable future.

Politics: women's issues dominate the political discussion, with huge amounts of discussion about "securing the female vote" being a vital consideration to win office. The ALP has made the running thanks to the influence of the afore-mentioned female dominated unions.

Professions: women are now the majority of practising professionals and their numbers are increasing rapidly, especially in health and the Law.

Corporate governance: women are well-represented on boards and that is set to increase dramatically with the push from the (feminist-dominated)Left to mandate minimum 50% female membership.

Domestic life: childcare is now a massive industry, just as all forms of home services are as women choose to prioritise paid work over domestic responsibilities.

Home ownership: 2 incomes are now required to purchase an average family home.

Violence: young women are now equally as violent as young men, according to a study reported this morning. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/young-women-not-holding-back-on-violence-20100111-m2hn.html

Antiseptic

The changes you list are the sort of changes one would expect in any society where women have relatively recently won the right to participate alongside men in the educational, workforce and political life of the nation. They hardly constitute a radical reorganization, and I doubt very much are at all what Squeers was driving at when starting the thread.

Yes, women are participating more equally and are dominating some areas, just as men are still dominating many other areas. Nothing extraordinary about any of that. Despite this greater female presence in public life, however, there has been no corresponding shift in the way society is organized.

It's still business as usual. The same values that have dominated right throughout this period of increasing female participation are still paramount. They are rarely questioned, let alone properly challenged. The only change is that women are now out there competing with men for the same stakes that men have always fought for.

The changes needed to create a fairer and less destructive way of life are as far away from reality as they've ever been. And this in spite of the urgency of the need for these changes becoming increasingly more obvious.

And please, Antiseptic, no more patronizng pats on the head. :)

the Constitution of Australia provides men with two legislatures in the federal
parliament, women are provided with none. men govern women, themselves,
education, health, the bureaucracy, unions, politics, the professions, corporate
governance, domestic life and the delivery of justice, that's the law. women
govern nothing in their own right, remaining under perpetual male supervision.

three High Court justices, a Governor-General, an acting Prime Minister, one
fifth of the Cabinet, Outer Ministry and Parliamentary Secretariate [10/49], 40 of
150 members of the House of Representatives, 27 of 76 members of the
Senate, women have acquired the skills to govern independently of men in the
parliament of an equal rights republic enacting law by agreement between the
cabinets of a women's legislature and a men's legislatures presided over by an
executive comprised of equal numbers of senior women and senior men
accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

the outcome, peace and sustainable prosperity in perpetuity.

radical enough?

I've been reading the comments on this thread
with interest and now realise that my initial
response was rather narrow - through a middle
class perspective.

In fact the feminist movement has been largely
a middle class pursuit. It was led by well
educated women - excluded from the political and
professional organisations run by middle class
men.

Sure, things have changed greatly since Anne
Summers wrote, "Damned Whores and God's Police,"
however in Australian society women from non-English
speaking backgrounds remain one of the most marginalised
groups. Suffering more unemployment, alienation and
isolation. Many from lower socio-economic backgrounds
have been excluded from active participation in
Australian democracy.

The rest of us, well up until the 1960s - we were
expected to be a wife and a mother, now we're
expected to be everything else as well.

Seriously, women are expected to be efficient workers,
loving mothers and partners as well as active citizens -
and sure we've come a long way - but we've still got a
long way to go. And that as Squeers is suggesting
is something we've got to do something about!
Fight for the rights of all women!

' we were expected to be a wife and a mother, now we're
expected to be everything else as well.'

Ah that old chestnut, societal expectations.

It seems to me the most radical thing a woman can do is accept responsibility for her own choices, and stop blaming 'societal expectations' for everything.

Whether it be choosing to do the housework, choosing to buy beauty magazines, choosing to have children or not, choosing to wear a low cut top and a tea towel for a skirt, choosing a high earning partner, choosing a career, choosing to go home blind drunk with a stranger.

It seems to me even though women can participate fully in public life, they still really want men, or even other women, to give them permission. The problem with having choice is that you have to choose, and take responsibility for what you chose.

Conversely, society must expect nothing from men. I keep waiting for 'masculinists' to rally against the unrealistic representations of home maintenance as portrayed in Better Homes and Gardens and Backyard Blitz. Duping the male population into spending their weekends and pay packets at Bunnings and being expected to be a carpenter, a plumber, a landscape gardener, an arborist. All the while publishing studies about the proportion of yard work men are doing, how they're time poor, reducing home improvement to a gender equity issue. Studies on the media praying on men's DIY insecurities, forcing them to conform to an unrealistic ideal.

All for a nice place to do the 'entertaining'. For who? You guessed it, not his friends, he meets them down the pub. Sure he might enjoy getting away form the wife and spending 3 hours to buy a screwdriver in Bunnings, but that's just analogous to a woman under constant body image pressures enjoying getting her nails done.

But you'll never see this, as men are immune to 'societal expectations', or else they take responsibility for their choices.

Bronny,

'Sadly to say, I think they've gone shopping. :)'
Very Good. Perhaps they have.

BTW: Perhaps they're not 'androcentric values' after all.

This may be diverting this thread slightly, but a question occurred to me and I suspect that the people who follow this thread are the right people to ask.

Last year, there was alot of discussion about the Kyle & Jackie O lie detector scandal. One of the key issues was claims that the girl was lying. It just occurred to me that she was hooked up to a lie detector when she made the claim. Does anyone know if the lie detector thought that she was lying? I know that it is old news, but I cannot believe that I didn't think to ask this at the time.

Hello all,
I'm a friend of Squeers', who is currently indisposed and asks me to pass on his regrets that he's unable to participate further in this thread. He says that his opening premise is all important: "that our current system is bad. Capitalism is exploitative and rapacious, and can never attain to [even relative] equality [for the global consumer base] within its closed global precincts; boom and bust, devastation of the planet, and ultimately total collapse, is written in[to] capitalism's DNA".
If you don't accept this, or can argue that the economic dynamics at play are sustainable or ultimately governable, then political tinkering within the system might be valid, all important or even vital.
But if the system is headed for a cliff, as all the evidence suggests it is, then what we need is radical action directed at the remote dynamic that drives us ever on. All the political jockeying within the system does nothing about where we're heading. We have to get outside the whale. When we go over the cliff it's not going to matter whether we were a patriarchal or a matriarchal system!
What prevents what amounts to the revolutionary change that's needed, is hegemony.
So when Antiseptic puts women's apparent conservatism down to evolution--Squeers' "perennial preeners and peacemakers"--the implication is that women are not merely under-represented in radical politics, they are quite possibly the overwhelming inhibitors of genuine change!
Squeers doesn't mind if women take over (though gender equality would be optimal), they'd probably do a better job! But what's the good of reforming a society that's headed for disaster?!
Bronwyn is thus spot on!
If this analysis is credible, then women, with their 50% of the vote, are not only not pulling their radical weight, they're insuring we keep unerringly on course.

(Thanks Mitchell - sorry to hear that Squeers can't be here for now. If it's illness or some difficulty please pass along my wishes for a quick recovery.)

On another thread I wrote: <"Feminism's general intent has been to change the systems and structures whereby power and authority were/are gained and maintained at the expense of others, especially women and children, not to buy a controlling share in the idiocracy.

Our intent must be to value all people; not just swap roles as oppressor and oppressed.">

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9889#159334

All people from middle to lower income groups are exploited in order to maintain existing power structures that benefit a few at the top of the social pyramid. Where ever people are dependent on others for financial support they are at a major disadvantage in a capitalist system - hence feminism's emphasis on the need for females to obtain education and employment opportunities. People may well choose to fulfil traditional roles but they need to be equipped to support themselves if the need arises.

As those gains slowly accumulate many women have forgotten that feminism that made it possible. They remain dependent on male approval and "... parties to their own oppression". Marked examples of that in non-Western societies exist where women assist in honour killings, often of their own daughters. They are infused with notions of being the 'good' woman. Examples that are less stark continue to pervade Western society.

Less powerful men are kept preoccupied with trying to preserve what little power and authority they have had - such as authority over women and children. Therefore feminism continues to be busy putting out spot fires - petty stuff, but necessary just to hang on to the tenuous gains that have been made.

The powers that are advantaged by maintaining antagonisms between the little folk. Many people have absorbed a stereotype of 'feminist' along with terms such as feminazi and radfem and so on. Their fears are being played of course. If a few thought about it they'd realize that they've never met a woman who conformed to such a stereotype.

cont/d:

Cont/d:

In fact, if there were such types as radical feminists Canberra would be a bomb crater. If there were such a thing as man-hating feminists, men and boys would be turning up tortured and dead with a frequency comparable to that of girls and women, which is daily news fare.

Radical actions include dropping bombs; shooting and blowing people up. Those are the methods that belong with the system that needs to change; it's not a humanist approach.

Lastly, we need a vision of a post-capitalist society. I'd like to talk about that sometime.

Antiseptic: I have posted referenced information that is accurate, as opposed to the statements you're still making. However, even if women had achieved the gains you claim have already been made - so what?

Since women continue to be responsible for 70% or more of childcare and you have posted many times how unfair it is that men be expected to support women and children, what entitles you (or any man who shares your views) to a better education or better employment opportunities than the average mother with kids in tow; or any female who is likely to be childbearing in the future ?

Very well put, Pynchme.
It seems to me then that an important issue is to establish comprehensively that the current system is (if it is) leading us to destruction (there is no question that it's unethical and exploitative, which ought to be reason enough for an overhaul), since if women are motivated by maternal instincts for optimal conditions in which to nest and rear children, they might be interested to know that our present culture, quite apart from being ethically reprehensible, cannot continue in the state of rude health it's enjoyed so far.
Then, as you say, "we need a vision of a post-capitalist society". Here is a rather large conundrum; no one can imagine such a system! Moreover, and here's the real sticking point for mine, global capitalism, with its vast infrastructure and the teeming masses it's bred, is now impossible to reign in. Only capitalism can manage, for now, the human juggernaut it's created. Any disruption to supply might lead to chaos and death on a biblical scale. Indeed, a mass die off is probably inevitable with so many threats looming. It's probably only after such a holocaust that a new and sustainable human culture has any hope of getting off the ground. Nevertheless, that's what we should be formulating and circulating, imo, the fundamentals for an ethical and sustainable post-capitalist human society.

Do women pull their radical “weight”?

I find most “radicals” have an over-developed presumption to their own significance in the world.

They mostly just run around, play at revolutions, pander to their favourite activist cause-du-jour and expect to dictate to other folk what they must think and do. All this Global Warming garbage being the perfect focus for their indifferent existence

So “radical weight” is not simply some much overstated “quality”
but is better described as an underestimated character flaw.

Regarding radical feminists, well dearest Margaret wrapped it up with her statement

“I owe nothing to Womens Lib”

So a lot of “radicals” are simply over-indulged folk who have enough time and money on their hands that they do not have to worry about the day to day issues of work , accommodation, food etc.

in short

politically intense show ponies, looking for a ring to show off in, a cause to champion and someone else to boss around.

I am not sure dear Margaret had that one quite right Col. If the early women's movement had not achieved voting rights for women I am not sure if Maggie would have risen to the dizzy heights of Prime Minister. Of course her hard work and career is as always very much of one's own dedication and commitment.

Pynchme has made some excellent points.

Much of the radicalism we need is reassessing and identifying the pitfalls of global capitalism and ways the system can be tweaked to ensure more power is handed down to the people and vested interest groups hold governments to ransom. Some radical out of the square thinking to ensure we don't continue to perpetuate a system that relies on growth and continual exploitation of resources to survive.

Of course radicalism is in the eye of the beholder and the Left is often branded as Radical by the overly Conservative. However, not all radical thinking is positive depending of course on one's view of the world.

The increase in the radical right is concerning; the idea that the collective interest is 'the enemy' in preference to individualism, consumerism and the idolisation of the laissez-faire. And all the potential risks in that sort of thinking to those who do not possess power. There does not seem to be any balance down that line other than an 'everyone in it for themselves' attitude and a dog-eat-dog existence without any safety nets or protections.

Pynchme

Your words are sweet music to my ears. Long may I read many more of them.:)

<< ... if there were such types as radical feminists, Canberra would be a bomb crater. >>

I agree with your statement that we need a vision of post-capitalist society, but I think it's possible to pull our 'radical weight' in this direction without resorting to violence. In an environment where the current rapacious style of capitalism is still being sold as our best and only option, the act of even putting forward the idea that there are better alternatives is 'radical' in itself. The more it's done, the more traction it will gain, especially as economic and environmental circumstances simultaneously deteriorate, as they're bound to.

Col Rouge

<< ... a lot of “radicals” are simply over-indulged folk who have enough time and money on their hands that they do not have to worry about the day to day issues of work , accommodation, food etc. - in short - politically intense show ponies, looking for a ring to show off in, a cause to champion and someone else to boss around. >>

This comment is typical of the tactics used to discredit and shut down any who dare to contemplate radical alternatives to your beloved laissez-faire capitalism, but again it's typically wide of the mark. Most of the 'radical weight' being shifted in this world right now is happening in third world countries where only a very small minority live as you describe. Besides, it is possible to work hard and think outside the square at the same time you know, the two are not mutually exclusive. You, Col, seem to find as much time to contemplate the state of the world as us radically inclined layabouts. :)

Mitchell - welcome! And Squeers, take care, hope to see you back again soon, you're another wonderful breath of fresh air on OLO. Pelican, Benk and Foxy - great comments too, as always, though Benk I must admit I missed the relevance of your lie-detector post. :)

Ah Bronwyn so pleased to see your response, which proves much of my comment

Re “Besides, it is possible to work hard and think outside the square at the same time you know, the two are not mutually exclusive. “

Actually, bronny, I make my money form “thinking outside the square” the difference… I do it in a productive manner, instead of the way of the “radical activist”, who is inherently envious and destructive in approach.

Activists assume their enforced “radical change” is necessary, where as most of the time what is lacking has more to do with their own lack of vision and respect for the rights of others.

“You, Col, seem to find as much time to contemplate the state of the world as us radically inclined layabouts. :)”

How I spend my time, “contemplating” anything, is up to me and not something which your opinion holds sway over.

As it is, I am “multi-focal”, balancing the demands of regular work with additional client expectations, family obligations and the state of the world.

Its called juggling… I find I can have about 4 “job” balls rolling around at any time (but 5 balls tends to cause problems), as well as the family and worldly demands. Maybe you find that hard to contemplate but maybe you are just not used to dealing with “pressure”.

Regarding “shut down any who dare to contemplate radical alternatives to your beloved laissez-faire capitalism,”

No, I like you espousing the fallacious goals of the left. That is what allows me to expose them as frauds.

The challenge for me, is to keep up with the changing names of the flim-flam and balderdash of the left

Like dearest Margaret also said "Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

We see it today, in the lefts attempts to turn AGW/Climate Change into a motive for

Socialism by Stealth

Replacing the more direct thrust of failed collectivism, promoted with Brezhnev's tanks

No offence, Col Rouge, but it seems to me that this notion of equal opportunity, sanctified in the US, is not only bogus, but feeds the self-congratulatory vanity of those who’ve “made it”. There are of course many reasons for worldly success, such as not being born black in sub-Saharan Africa. Having avoided that fate, success then comes down to a range of peculiar circumstances, including parentage and demographic, gender (though yes, it’s improving) and even looks and presentation (bummer if you have a cleft pallet). Even such intangibles as self-confidence and temperament are factors. These last (I think) are largely determined genetically, or they can be compromised by abusive parents, or any number of life circumstances that can nip them in the bud and prevent one from achieving the kind of success you seem to admire. Finally, of course blind luck often plays a part in the success of “great men”—rich parents or a benefactor, or just being in the right place at the right time. Of course it suits the “great man” just fine to put all his worldly success down entirely to his own greatness and entrepreneurial spirit. In my experience such monumental conceit generally masks a mean and wretched spirit, the obverse of its material station—stunted by the very prodigality of fate! though he will tell himself in his overweening fantasies that ‘twas hard won and richly deserved. Our laissez-faire system twists and deforms what the human “spirit” might otherwise achieve.
Sorry I sound a bit sermonising. There would still be outstanding “individuals” in a world of genuine equal opportunity (not based on empire buiding), but I suspect they’d inspire rather than gloat.
P.S. I can assure you, I'm not envious :-)

Mitchell “no Offence, Col Rouge”

None taken

The rest of your paragraph could be reduced to the following few words

We are all “individuals”, each distinguished by a differing mix of qualities and (possibly) some defects.

So why pretend we are “ALL THE SAME”

Why pretend we are “ALL EQUAL” – excepting “under the law” (as is commonly acknowledged by those with a modicum of insight into jurisprudence)

Regarding “Our laissez-faire system twists and deforms what the human “spirit” might otherwise achieve. “

Wrong

It is the “laissez-faire” aspects of the “system” which enables every individual to aspire to achieve.

It is the levelling influence of the collectivist, by any name, which works to limit the degree an individual can grow or otherwise be enriched by their individual characteristics, ensuring “Equality of Outcome” for all (aka Mediocrity).

Whilst people remain the result of their genetic composition, we will always be individuals, regardless that we are from sub Saharan Africa or any other point North, South, East or West.

So sermonise all you want

I prefer to listen and talk with those who achieve, rather than with those who “sermonise” and attempt to mollify their own inadequacies, and have guilt complexes about being born better off than some shmuck in Sub Saharan Africa

Or to put it another way…

I am responsible for being the best I can be.

I am not responsible for ensuring you or some bloke in sub Saharan Africa is the best you will be,

because you neither control, nor direct not limit my efforts, as I have better things to do with my time than spend it controlling, directing or limiting yours.

"Society" is merely the collective noun applied to a collection of "individuals", like a "flock of geese" or "school of sharks".

and as dearest Margaret said....

"there is no such thing as "Society"

(Full quote avaiilable upon request)

Isn't this the little Green Left Weekly corner of OLO!

I'm enjoying the joust between Col and Mitch, but I still side with Col, and not just because he's my favourite poster and finds himself in a sea of Che T-shirts and black rimmed glasses.

I'm waiting for Col to bring out the 'If equality was obtained, in 3 years the cream will rise to the top once again.'

Hard to beat really. Witch leaves the rest of you raving radical lefties with the question of what such new system could prevent this, given the restriction of no return to communism. Or socialism, which as Col correctly states has an end goal of communism anyway.

Socialism by Stealth. I never get tired of hearing that Col. I am beginning to realise just how much I have underestimated the extent to which Feminism is really Socialism by Stealth too.

What irks me is that Bronny and co keep lauding all these supposedly altruistic 'female' values and slagging the supposed 'androcentric' values of capitalism.

We have...

'broken down the old male hegemony, but it's done nothing to challenge the dominance of androcentric values'

Then...

'Despite this greater female presence in public life, however, there has been no corresponding shift in the way society is organized.

It's still business as usual. The same values that have dominated right throughout this period of increasing female participation are still paramount. They are rarely questioned, let alone properly challenged.'

The answer is why? Well it couldn't be that they aren't androcentric values after all now could it? We all know women, the altruistic nurturers and lovers and peaceful negotiators, protectors of all the worlds children would never so happily and willingly perpetuate such a system.

I think if all these nice good girls cant 'fix' the world and correct this flawed 'male' value system, there really is no hope for you lefties. From where I'm sitting, the chicks in the west who have a piece of the pie aren't any more willing than the blokes to give it up for those kiddies in India and Africa.

Mitchell,
Amen!

Add to that they value money more than equity (as in fairness).
I also find these people often bullies in that they judge everyone by their 'self made' mentality and look down on those who don't accumulate (their method of keeping score) like them or subscribe to their notion of Status Quo 'order'.

The concept of equity and "enough is as good as a feast" are foreign concepts.

The intellectual dishonesty of this position is predicated on the two demonstrably false assumptions
a. Argument by absolutes...you are either laise faire or Socialist etc.
b. the magic pudding scenario....never ending growth.

In short the logic is upside down there are absolutes in abstraction but none in the corporeal.

'All people from middle to lower income groups are exploited in order to maintain existing power structures that benefit a few at the top of the social pyramid.'

Wow. All people. And they don't even know it. Paternalistic much. I see many happy pikeys wandering along to Harvey Norman and Ikea on the weekend. This childish anti-authoritarian picture of exploitation runs 2 ways. Without the rich and powerful investors of the world, what standard of living would these poor and down trodden have then? Without the Taxes of these top of the pyramid types, what kind of social services would they enjoy? Oh, that's right, if we crippled the rich and powerful and paid everyone the same, they would still work as hard and donate all their superior skills and intelligence for the greater good of the world.

'If a few thought about it they'd realize that they've never met a woman who conformed to such a stereotype.'

I dunno pynchme, I think you do a pretty good job of hamming it up. It's why I find you so amusing.

'Lastly, we need a vision of a post-capitalist society. I'd like to talk about that sometime.'

I like your style. Bring down the existing system and then talk over some sort of replacement. Worked well in Iraq.

Mitch,

'global capitalism, with its vast infrastructure and the teeming masses it's bred, is now impossible to reign in. Only capitalism can manage, for now, the human juggernaut it's created.Any disruption to supply might lead to chaos and death on a biblical scale. Indeed, a mass die off is probably inevitable with so many threats looming. It's probably only after such a holocaust that a new and sustainable human culture has any hope of getting off the ground.'

Too true

When feminism started, one of their original aims was to undermine paternalism; condescending views about the level of protection that women need. As time has gone by, this aim seems to have been forgotten. In fact, people like the media and politicians have developed a safe sort of feminism-lite that manages to combine both sound feminist and appeal to old fashioned ideas about ‘protecting women’.

I see feminism-lite when people tip-toe around women’s self-esteem and applaud any old lifestyle choice for fear of damaging some woman’s precious feelings. Feminism-lite is also responsible for the ever broadening definitions of rape/sexual assault and domestic violence and the accompanying rise in the number of ‘victims’. You would need to think that woman were pretty damn fragile to find much of that behaviour genuinely harmful. Of course, once a woman has victim status, no-one can criticise them in any way or even be rude enough to suggest that they might help themself, that would be blaming the victim. The useful thing about feminism-lite is that no woman ever needs to make a sacrifice on account of their deeply held feminist principles.

The people who push this model of feminism need to take a look at a calendar, swallow a cup of cement and harden ....up.

Good grief,

Why does everything have to appear black or white? equity does NOT mean equality.
Equity means fairness....clearly a foreign concept to some.

*Nobody least of all me* is saying make everybody equal and paid accordingly. What I am saying a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
Not this exploitist BS Feral Capitalism which pays a worker $6k while the execs claim Millions.

Business ran in Australia for years where the MD got 10 times the average wage. The execs now get golden parachutes when they or the businesses fail and the employees get Zip and no parachute.

I have no problem with profit motive, only when it goes feral and creates GFC, which lead to 1/10 extra unemployed in the US. One year out, the bank execs who caused the problem, are awarding themselves millions in bonuses. Because with handouts they are now facing less competition therefore easier profits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8455603.stm
Read the news not the comics! although sometimes they seem interchangeable.

BTW I'm not advocating we go back to the 60s but there is a figure in between then and the obscenity now.

This is not socialism! This is common sense. Add to that the debt bubble is still with us and all hell could break loose. There is still $600 Trillion toxic debt out there somewhere.
What happens if China decides it wants its money back

Thanks Bronwyn, Pelican and Mitchell :)

I like your suggestions Pelican, <"... the system can be tweaked to ensure more power is handed down to the people ... ">

I believe it would be a really positive exercise to envision how things could look post-capitalism-as-we-know-it-now.

For example, I have often considered how small community clusters could be strengthened and a lot of industry wound back to local scale.

Another way that power and activity could be promoted at community level would entail removing a lot of petty bureaucratic controls like egg boards. Allow small local producers to provide locally without government imposition so that we can expect creatures to be treated more considerately.

We have a lot of rural hospitals in disrepair but they are still salvageable buildings and they have operating rooms and all. Instead of everyone flocking to cities to queue for even minor work; why can't city folk travel by train out to rural centres to obtain some types of medical care.

Hospitals once had fully staffed kitchens using produce from local suppliers. Having all the food mass packaged in coastal cities and trucked to country facilities destroyed local jobs and markets. It wouldn't take much to reverse that to alleviate pressure on large city centres and rejuvenate rural communities.

Those are just a few thoughts - but I reckon we could have a whale of a time thinking creatively about how things could be reorganized.

The things that unions could achieve! - but they haven't taken a prominent role for a long time now. In health services jobs at executive level have expanded over the last 10 years while other jobs have been whittled away to too few maintenance workers, kitchen staff and hospital assistants. We need those jobs restored. I figure we could employ about 3 wardsmen; kitchen workers or maintenance workers for every single executive or high level administrative position or overpaid professional. Maybe if our facilities were in better repair, workers from the health professions wouldn't be so hard to recruit and keep.

Anyway, ...just a couple of random ideas.

Any others ?

Houellebecq: "Isn't this the little Green Left Weekly corner of OLO!"
Yes. I think you and Col are looking for the National Socialist section?
.....................

Benk,
I think feminism was and is a legitimate radical movement whose aspirations go beyond merely getting an equal slice of the cake. But having achieved so much (though it's still, comparatively, a man's world) initially, instead of gaining momentum radical feminism has shrunk, or gone offshore, and melded with identity politics generally. Politically, feminism has been co-opted, and culturally it's been betrayed by its own sorority--though to be fair, I don't think it ever enjoyed broad support. And as we've seen also with gay and green politics, minority politics gets absorbed.

Pynchme,
I still think global capitalism has to go the course--that is over the cliff. The kind of commune lifestyle you're talking about's been tried, and once again, assimilated. It'd be as divorced from reality as Amish society is imho. In any case modern westerners couldn't handle life in the raw; they've been bred as hot-house plants, used to a controlled and stable environment, as well as a conviction of their individual preciousness. Even those who could handle it don't have the option; we are part of modern culture and subject to its laws whether we like it or not.
Only a popular groundswell movement along the lines you suggest would have any hope, and we'd have to roll our political masters first.
Then we'd need a raison d'etre--that opening premise again, that we're headed for a cliff--before anyone joined in. Besides, the majority would never believe it, or choose not to believe as easily as they deny AGW, peak oil or their own pig-ignorance. The boardrooms and shopping malls and all the comforts and conceits to which we've become accustomed, are just to hard to give up :-(

Hiya Mitchell.

I didn't picture communes; but economic units emphasizing production of local goods for a local market. A localized community in a rural area could be a whole region with several towns in it. I am not entirely opposed to globalization - like of communication. I just don't see why every major institution has to be conformed the same way.

With everyone clinging to the coast in large conglomerates, I can see them being dependent on food, for one thing, that isn't even produced in the same country. If that supply is compromised a lot of city softies are going to be living in environments reminiscent of post cold war Russia. The trouble is that by then a whole generation or more of people with the knowledge and skills in animal husbandry and farming will have lost their skill base.

Our household made a mutual decision some years ago to be anti-materialist. It's very liberating to free oneself from the consumer treadmill.

As to Unions - see I believe that they have a lot of latent power that could be roused to construct family friendly work arrangements. We could adopt working hours with a start time anywhere between 7 and 10 am as long as 8 hours work is done. Or we could work four 10 hour days per week. Maybe people could do one day a week (at least) working from home. There would be a lot of work tasks that could be done from home and emailed back to the work place; phone calls and the like. It would also reduce pressure on office space.

If both parents were doing something like that with flexible work times and locations, there would be much less need for child care round the clock. Life could be so darned interesting. We haven't gone over the cliff yet and we still have the chance to reconstruct our living and working arrangements. I hope we don't need a massive crash before we get smart and creative; though I agree with you that if we don't do something, a crash is virtually certain.

Seems like you're at least walking the walk pynchme, kudos to you.

How does this anti-materialist lifestyle work? How far do you go in defining a want over a need? You could actually survive living 6 to a room and eating lentils and never washing or changing your clothes.

I would like to buy a shaver that lasts 30 years. Just an old style razor that can be sharpened (It could double as a weapon or for psychotic play). I have bought 2 electric razors in the last 3 years and they were both crap, and I hate shelling out for disposable razors or the $15 for 3 blades type ripoff.

This concept needs to be made fashionable. Products could be advertised as 'this is the last one you'll have to buy'. Of course it's a pipe dream. Nobody believes anything any more (quite rightly), every shop always has a sale sign out front and some cant afford to buy quality anyway.

On construction sites I hear builders no longer buy any good tools, they just buy that $20 nail gun and throw it away and get another one when it breaks. But I wonder if you could sell a 20 year lasting one whether they'd prefer it. I suppose nobody has the confidence the company will still be around in 20 years for a replacement.

It would never work with technology as it changes too fast, and fashion ensures quality clothes will never be bought. But little black dresses never go out of fashion. I think some company must have bought millions of them 50 years ago, so they've made a pact to designate them always to be in fashion.

I've long dreamed of your workplace flexibility. Actually if feminists could pull off workplace flexibility for men I think they'd be surprised at how it helps women. They work hard not smart those chicks.

The problem is no boss believes people do any work when they 'work form home', and they're right in most cases.

Pynchme

<< Our household made a mutual decision some years ago to be anti-materialist. It's very liberating to free oneself from the consumer treadmill. >>

We've also become much more frugal and I agree it's a liberating way to live. I walk into a shopping centre now and find very little of it has any real appeal, unless I'm specifically looking for something I need. I can go weeks without shopping, apart from food and basic household items and I love the freedom it gives me. Even with C/mas shopping I buy most of it from Amnesty and Fair Trade catalogues. That way I feel I really am giving, not merely feeding some corporate conglomerate's bottom line.

It's frustrating though that our best individual efforts are so often thwarted by the way our economy is organized. The profit imperative rules, and conservation comes a poor second. As pointed out by Houellebeqc, we often have little choice but to purchase throw-away items where we once could have bought something repairable. So much of what we throw away is environmentally toxic too, but it takes a deal of determination to have things recycled, repaired or reused. I'm often forced to throw away things that I know should have lasted much longer or that should have been repairable and kept in usage.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think Houllebeqc's claim that nothing will change until it's seen to be 'fashionable' is pretty much spot on. Being the 'right' thing to do is not going to cut it for most people, at least not until we get much closer to that inevitable collapse. But therein lies the rub, how do you make any worthwhile concept fashionable without getting advertising and big business on side? And how do you get them to market an idea contary to their short-term profit motive?

It seems that even though we know it's killing us we're still all locked into this wasteful consumptive lifestyle. Will individual decisions to exit the treadmill ever be enough to effect real change? Or are collective more radical options needed?

Bronwyn, Pynchme, Houellebecq,

I agree with your sentiments about localized production and commerce, and about organizing things within community clusters. This was how things operated not so long ago - seems consumerism has run away with us all. The recent popularity of local markets, I believe , is one indication that people crave the informality and personal connection of that sort of community interaction.
I grow a bit of veg and keep a few chickens - as do my friends. We all found that a sort of organic cooperation sprang up between us, so that when we planted we took into account what other friends had planted so that we tended not to overlap too much, therefore allowing us to supply each other with the things we grew less of. We all give each other our produce with no money changing hands - quite refreshing and a good way to experience giving while also receiving something in return.
On Houellebecq's point about having to throw things away all the time - I remember watching a program a few years ago about how Cuba managed to cope with the embargo. There was a whole industry that repaired things like barber's clippers, industrial tools, etc. Because the original tools and machines were of such good quality, they were able to keep them operating by doing good quality repairs.

I have to admit that my lifestyle's anything but green (though it's not profligate), and the four women in my life (wife and three daughters) are shopping maul chicks. I have high hopes for a particularly smart son, though, who's very keen on conservatism.
I asked my wife this morning after reading your post, Pynchme, how she'd like the kind of life you outlined. She was non-committal, but non-plussed I think.
We are creatures of this time and reality, and incapable of meaningful change, en masse. But, like skin, a culture's population renews itself every generation, each new generation is acclimatised to its reality, and very different to the one that preceded it. We're all doomed to become dinosaurs before we die--if we live long enough--and the notion of a culture's longevity is an illusion.
In a sense Col,s right about individualism (though his condemnation of what he calls collectivism is a simplistic old cliche directed at socialism), though not his elitist version. The only consolation for our cultural entrapment is to live individualistically--become eccentrics, though even so we remain, thereby, products of our time. Certainly a better option than the treadmill!
Sorry to be a damp squib, Bronwyn et al. Though capitalism accommodates a great deal to keep the wheels turning, we shouldn't mistake internal tolerances, or slippage, for a change of course; it's just another manifestation of fashion, rather than radicalism.

Just re-read your last post, Bronwyn, and we say essentially the same thing, I think--only you said it first :-)

Examinator: "BTW I'm not advocating we go back to the 60s but there is a figure in between then and the obscenity now".

I was born in 1960 and was one of the last of the ten pound Poms arriving in 1970.
Once we got out of the hostel, we furnished our house mainly from the tip, right down to floor coverings! And growing up I recall nothing ever being thrown out if it could be re-used. And yet now I discard and renew as readily as anyone--mainly because it's cheaper than repairs, or the old item is already obsolete. My superego--moulded by my post-war parents who went through the rigours of rationing--gives me a hard time, but s/he makes no material difference (isn't education grand--I see through my conscience!). Now the emerging generations know nothing of this; my eldest daughter (13) has friends who refuse to eat the pointy end of a Cornetto because it's "
"cheap chocolate". Moreover they discard their entire wardrobe every twelve months, often with the labels still attached (my daughter doesn't--in fact she gets their hand-me-downs). Everything's relative; should capitalism avoid the cliff, its futuristic denizens will no doubt deem our lifestyles barbarous.
To drag us back on topic, and hopefully entice the feminists out of the beauty parlours; are today's women in fact showing men what real decadence looks like?

I think conservation is impossible. Unless you want to read a scientific study on every choice you make, you'll never win.

How does the damage of wasted water and polluting the ocean with detergents to wash dishes compare with logging trees for paper cups and the oil for plastic containers. Then what about the cost of mass transport of the food to the local Coles vs the use of your Car to drive to the markets much farther away. The cost to the environment of running your fridge vs the cost of more trips to the shops.

If you weighed up every decision like that you'd go insane.

On the consumer level, it's probably cheaper to re-buy a product with a 1 year life span 10 times than buy the quality one that's *supposed* to last 10 years. I don't think the average person can fight that, and I don't think they want to anyway.

Shopping has become a leisure activity. I hate shopping myself and I buy all the clothes I need in one go at 3 year intervals, but my partner is constantly buying clothes. She admits she just likes the act of buying something and it gives her a warm fuzzy feeling. I don't think she's alone. I also think women are more likely to be like that. It might be a nesting instinct. But notice in the average shopping mall, 75% of the floor space is filled with stuff for women.

In that way, women are by far the major force behind materialist culture. Even Bunnings is really about men wanting to please their wives (And get some peace away from them as I said). The 'outside-room' that now has to be adorned in the same spirit as those curtains and cushions and cupboards full of linen that you'll never find in a bachelors house.

Men are by far the more likely to be buying tech gadgets of course, but as I said the shops are 75% full of stuff for women.

Hey Houlle good to see you back in your OLO saddle and riding flank

Thankyou for your words of appreciation too…

It pleases me to rate as a favoured poster.

Doubtless not all here share your enthusiasm for my view (recalling how the little leftie, RobP wrote he wished I would contract cancer… and then, like a whoosie, complained about my supposed flaming and had me banned).

Mitchell/Squeers "that our current system is bad… Capitalism is exploitative and rapacious, and can never attain to [even relative] equality [for the global consumer base] within its closed global precincts; boom and bust, devastation of the planet, and ultimately total collapse, is written in[to] capitalism's DNA".”
“I still think global capitalism has to go the course--that is over the cliff.”

Regardless all the wringing of hands, renting of clothing and demonstrable anguish by the collectivist non-achievers, who feel they cannot accept the practical dynamics of a capitalist market economy

It just Ain't gonna happen

Re all the “left wing collectivist values” being so “important” that we cannot live without them,

If that were true, the “selfish individuals of capitalism” would have already died out and left the whole world to the collectivists.

I suggest the left go build their nirvana in some other spot on the earth,

maybe at the edge of the Aral Sea,

oh maybe not,

the government experts of the socialist utopia of USSR turned it into a desert… (so maybe they should wander the desert, like the Jews of old)

Leaving the capitalists, who prefer to coexist and respect their inherent, undeniable, unchangeable and unequal differences to get on with living and procreating and being happy.

If the politics of the left were so right, why did the decadent USA and western democracies not collapse under the acclaimed and supposedly undeniable “superiority” of “Soviet socialism”?

Hey Houlle

I have a new banner to accompany “Socialism by Stealth”

“Capitalism, you know it makes sense and you get to stay free”

And I just love your last post…..

ahhh three cheers for “consumer choice”

H: <"How does this anti-materialist lifestyle work? How far do you go in defining a want over a need?">

Just got sick of owning objects; opened the house to anyone who wanted something to come and get it. If I hadn't seen or used something for a year it went regardless of monetary value. A few favourite things like books and computers in use remained but everything else went: modular lounge suites, extra beds, desks, linen, crockery, cookware, electrical goods, TV, laptop and computers not in daily use, clothes, late model executive vehicle, shelves, tables, ornaments. Then moved to a cottage. It was exhilarating. Not because of the altruistic aspects, I have to admit - but the release of responsibility for carting and storing a lot of things that were often not even seen for months.

Although I understand what you mean, the emphasis isn't on differentiating a want from a need but on being non-acquisitive and on what I put in rather than what I get out.

As a non-gardener even I can manage to grow some tomatoes and cucumbers in a garden about the size of a table top. Things on vines are easy. I don't have much time for all of that so I pay others to do garden jobs - sharing the income around whenever an opportunity arises. Although I value frugality and it's a side benefit, it isn't the main objective. I've always earned a solid income. I didn't do all of this because I had to but because I wanted to.

I bought a little Gemini about 15 years ago; I think it would be near 30 year old by now. It's brilliant and I've traveled thousands of miles in it. The engine is small and easy to work on. It goes forever on a small amount of fuel. I do have a penchant for nice grooming, lacy gear and perfume but vanity is not a weakness. I buy a few cosmetics but none animal tested. I love shoes but two pair and some gym shoes suffice.

cont'd

I have a few basic clothes for work in black, grey and dark blue; all interchangeable, with one good jacket and a wrap in brown fleck, some scarves and blouses in white, beige or patterned fabric, often silk. I don't waste time or money worrying about clothes. If they start to look tacky I replace them or replacements come as gifts.
For gifts, friends and relatives know that I prefer an emailed card or pic (no paper; no storage), gym memberships, books, vouchers for books, petrol and the like, dvds, computer software, grocery treats, things to plant like fruit and nut trees and donations. Last Christmas one of my daughters bought gifts here and it was really exciting:

http://www.oxfamunwrapped.com.au/ViewContent.php?pageid=11

Good video too:
http://www.oxfamunwrapped.com.au/ViewContent.php?pageid=19

Some local people who cook, sew, knit and grow things appreciate a bit of extra income so I pay them to make or do things as gifts.

Just think about it - are there people that you like because of what they own? Did you ever like someone more because they drove up in a later model vehicle? I dislike or like people regardless of their possessions. If people think less of me because I don't cut a fine figure of consumerist devotion, I haven't lost anything - I doubt I would enjoy the company of people who evaluate others in those ways anyway.

I'm not socialist, capitalist, right, left, green or anything that can be categorized except as feminist and Christian. Maybe we need some new paradigms. I adopt values that make it possible for me to uphold efforts to do no harm. It's easier to destroy than to create, therefore life is precious. I treat all life respectably, if pragmatically. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. I do the best I can and I try to not have my needs or wants deprive anyone else of theirs.

I live well within my means with a bit to spare and share. Couldn't ask for more :D

Bron, Pelican and 'Zam - loved your posts. Wise perceptions Zam re: anti-capitalism isn't automatically socialism.

Very inspiring, Pynchme. Good for you! And I never even tweaked yours was a female perspective.
Your case is a rarity, I'd hazard, though I suspect a great many would love to follow your example if they could muster the courage, but that many more become thoroughly disillusioned with their materialistic lot without making the switch. Unfortunately, it generally takes quite a bit of life experience to make genuine life changes. Young people just enjoy the wonderful spread that our culture puts on, seemingly with no strings attached, for a time.
The other observation I'd make is that even this modest lifestyle choice you've made is comparative luxury, and indeed only available thanks to the largesse of our capitalist system.
But it does sound idyllic! :-)

We need to remember that there is little
basis for the common view that capitalism
and socialism represent "either/or"
alternatives, since neither system exists
in a pure form.

In practice there is a great variety in these
two kinds of economy, ranging from the most
capitalist societies such as the United States
and Canada, through intermediate societies,
such as Britain, Sweden, to the
most socialist societies, such as China.

There is, moreover, great variety in the political
systems that are associated with both capitalism
and socialism, for democratic and authoritarian
forms of government are found in each type of
economy.

For example, Sweden is socialist but democratic,
while Cuba is socialist but authoritarian;
Switzerland is capitalist and democratic, but
Chile is capitalist but authoritarain.

The concepts of "capitalism" and "socialism"
each represents merely an 'ideal type,'
an abstract description. One would have to
examine each individually to reveal their
essential features. Like anything each has its
pluses and its drawbacks.

Thanks Mitchell, I do often think of the vast number of people who will never in their lifetimes experience the comfort that I do in one night - bathed, well fed and with many hours of untroubled slumber ahead of me. Even the hope of having one night of safety and warmth must be a completely alien prospect to many of them. It makes any push for accumulating more than a person needs for basic comfort seem greedy and obscene doesn't it - and worse still when we accumulate as a result of exploiting impoverished people. I despise transnational companies btw. What do you all think should or can be done about them, if anything ?

Yes Romany I agree, as you and Examinator have described, there are many permutations of socio-political organization. Thank goodness for that hey.

I apologize btw if my previous posts parts 1 and 2 seemed a bit curt - it was a word length thing.

Col - I am not the first to have made this observation, but capitalism is predicated on the idea that the best and strongest competitors rise to the top. If capitalists actually applied that to their own favoured systems (by which they maintain control over the masses), then why did governments bail out the banks during the recent crisis? Those who were in a mire should have been allowed to sink, as the philosophy expects others to do who don't succeed for a range of largely circumstantial reasons.

r, why shouldn't the money have been used to pay off the mortgages - relieving the burden for ordinary wage earners and sorting out the debts the banks continue to pursue despite the bail out funds.

Anyway, have a lovely Sunday all:D

Foxy: "
"We need to remember that there is little
basis for the common view that capitalism
and socialism represent "either/or"
alternatives, since neither system exists
in a pure form."

You mean "democracy" and socialism I think?
Capitalism is the one manifest reality that governs all our lives, and in its global reach transcends domestic politics; the only differential is the local effect; some are rich, some are well off, and a great many are destitute. Capitalism will never, can never, bring equality--much less "equity", to observe Examinator's distinction--to the world.

I agree with you, however, about binaries.
In any case, socialism is a term so corrupted by propaganda (as well as evils perpetrated in its name) that it should be expunged (capitalism of course also perpetrates untold evils, but condemnation of a rival is always easier than self-examination, figuratively speaking).
Sweden's democratic socialism, or welfare capitalism, was an economic ploy designed to pre-emp bust and boom, and the dreaded Marxist dialectic. It's showing signs of failure, incidentally.

Houellebecq: <"I've long dreamed of your workplace flexibility. Actually if feminists could pull off workplace flexibility for men I think they'd be surprised at how it helps women. They work hard not smart those chicks">.

What an odd comment. My comment WAS for all workers. If men would like workplace flexibility, why haven't they tried for it ? The only fellas I've mentioned it to were indifferent about it. Perhaps men who can see the benefits of it would join with feminists in campaigning for it - that would be a hoot!

I have made a few tentative efforts in this direction; never had a positive response from any political party or union official. If I had more time I would really work hard on it but I'm sure there are people who know more about how these things work who could do it better. Belly is in the know about union biz isn't he? His opinion would be interesting.

Earlier you posted about the need for big biz; entrepreneurs and the associated taxes. I think that theory is referred to as the trickle-down effect. Clearly it isn't working. I think the problem might partly be that big companies (not small business - annoyingly) get tax breaks and favours... or ah 'incentives'; and people on high incomes employ accountants to minimize their tax contribution. I am not sure but I think the biggest tax burden is probably felt by low and middle income earners - like the 20,000 to 40,000 or so bracket.

Oh and Foxy my apologies - I called you Romany. Maybe a compliment anyway when you think about it; hope you didn't mind :)

Dear Mitchell,

I was referring to capitalism and socialism as -
the two basic economic systems in the world.
Capitalism in which the means of production and
distribution are privately owned. Socialism, in
which the means of production and distribution
are publicly owned. However as I tried to
point out neither system exists in pure form.
Their concepts represent merely an "ideal type."
I did not talk about 'Soviet-Style Socialism.'

The problem that I have with people
raving on about
capitalism is that they don't
mention the drawbacks such as
marked social inequality,
a large impoverished lower class,
and repeated cycles of prosperity and
recession, employment and unemployment.
No capitalist society has yet found
a way out of these dilemmas.

Of course while socialist societies
may distribute wealth more evenly
than capitalist ones, they are less
efficient at creating wealth in the
first place. Socialist economies are
more bureaucratic and less productive
than capitalist ones.
Perhaps the ideal answer would be a
blend of capitalist and socialist
elements - which is what democratic
socialism is - and exists in many
countries of Western Europe, such as
Denmark.

Dear Pynchme,

I don't mind being called Romany at all.

It's a great compliment - Thank You!

Foxy,
Socialist societies are surely a hypothetical, since none exists or can co-habit with capitalism. And Stalin's Soviet Union signifies the archetypal decline of socialism into bureaucracy, does it not?
Capitalist societies are also, surely, too productive? creating in the process their own fodder (population growth); from whom they can then derive bogus kudos for having liberated them from squalor?
Democratic socialism does have runs on the board and is, perhaps, a better system (and I didn't mean to imply that Sweden was on its own), though its religion is still capitalism and thus it's unsustainable. Indeed democratic socialism, in the context of a global village, is like a privileged industry (Cadbury for instance) or a spoiled union.
The big problem is of course, despite the politics, endless growth in a closed system. The wealthy are doomed to eventual penury, and the poor, or means of production, cannot be attenuated forever. The system is fundamentally (economically) flawed. It would work in an open system--as the world must have seemed to Adam Smith in his day--but then that still would have left the problem of an economics predicated on visceral human drives--which poor Adam Smith, being an enlightenment philosopher, mistook as being essentially philanthropic.
"Perhaps the ideal answer would be a
blend of capitalist and socialist
elements - which is what democratic
socialism is".
Perhaps, but minus the capitalism, which is the rogue element in any political system?

Dear Mitchell,

In actuality, there are two very divergent
forms of socialism in the modern world -
one practiced in authoritarian,
communist-ruled societies - (used to be
mostly in Eastern Europe), and Asia,
and one practiced in democratic, pluralist
societies, mostly in Western Europe.
These versions differ markedly in their
degree of centralized control of the
economy, and in the liberties their
citizens enjoy.

However most of the countries of Western
Europe have been moving away in a more capitalist
direction. There are also indisputable signs
that the communist-ruled societies are
embracing aspects of capitalism, especially
through their use of financial incentives.
They are finally confronting the fact that
their system is inherently inefficient.
The trend in all these societies is now
toward greater rewards for individual effort.

Economic convergence does appear to be taking
place - but will political convergence
follow?

It will be interesting to see how China will
develop in years to come and whether economic
liberalization will in turn lead to political
democratization. Given China's size and
potential, its economic future will be of
world-historical significance.

There are no socialist or communist systems worthy of the name, nor could one compete with capitalism in the global village. There are outlaw socialist dictatorships such as North Korea, authoritarian capitalism like China and South East Asia generally, and welfare capitalism like Sweden and co. All the world's political systems are either predicated on, have capitulated to, or are one way or another enthral to or victimised by capitalism--excepting perhaps a few micro indigenous economies yet to be appropriated.
The reasons alternative systems can gain no purchase in the world are complex, but in no small part due to the profligacy of capitalism--hence my comment about it being "too" productive--they can't compete.
The supposed moral ascendency of democratic (read hegemonic) capitalism is a bourgeois conceit. A manifest lie
But why are we splitting hairs? Capitalism, whatever the political sophistry, runs the world's markets, unconscionably and unsustainably. We agree on that I think? The political spin, whatever it might be, boils down to "pull the ladder up". No?
I'm not a loony lefty, Foxy and would love to be converted! Can I borrow your rose tinted glasses?

I'm with Mitchell on this one both examples are perversions of Socialism and Communism in reality. Likewise Capitalism has been hijacked and is now something else.

He has said more clearly, much of what I have been advocating for ....ever.

Well said sir.

It seems that taking people seriously is a source of malicious amusement for some. analogous to dog fighting ...what it says about the instigators is sad.

Dear Mitchell,

I don't wear glasses - but you can borrow
my sunnies - PRADA of course! :-)

Deciding between a need and a want is to me a matter of functionality.
i.e.
Although I can afford a new car my 15 year old Subaru is comfortable, economic, reliable does what I need it to do. I have a 'gold' mechanic, who specializes in Subarus, he's cheaper, efficient and great at fixing it when it needs it. I don't see real advantage in buying a Bma or Benz.
My self image doesn't need the additional expenses.
There are much more *worthy* uses for my discretionary money.
I use an old mobile on an old pricing structure. I have no need for a camera, internet browsing or nifty colours all consumerist hot buttons.

In short most marketeers focus on the the features not the functionality.

I.e. The effort is in high tech nick knacks rather than developing a a truly functional product H's electric razor. Why it's easier to sell emotions that function, also our system rewards quantity over quality. we love the idea of new.

My son bought a Wii fit to get fit...4 months later it sits in the corner unused. He was looking for a free lunch (magic bullet)i.e. loosing weight need constant effort.
Me I walk the mini hound of the Basketvilles (my wife's shihtzu) for a couple of miles nightly and watch what I eat.
Now if I could do the same with my home brew.

Speaking of which I have run a blind taste test with my son and he can't tell the difference. Yet Mine cost me $26 for 50 X 500mil bottles. the difference a couple of hours less spine bashing per batch.
Convenience isn't worth the cost.

I think pynchme's example of how she chooses to live has terminally weakened the case for the raving commies.

Notice in this fearsome capitalist system, one 'brave' woman has chosen to buy only what she needs and live her life how she chooses. That she cant control the rest of the populace to follow her example says wonderful things about the freedoms of capitalism. (Not that she's trying, but you get my point.)

When people talk about this supposed 'trap' of capitalism, it can only be by either a self analysis of personal weakness in vanity and greed, or a paternalistic patronising transference to others who don't share your values. 'They just cant see!'

ie: 'My self image doesn't need the additional expenses.'

I happen to drive a 96 Corolla, which I excitedly wait to appear on Top Gear every week. But I don't see this as a means to highlight my anti-materialist street-cred, and I feel no need to excuse myself for the car I drive, or judge others for enjoying a nicer car. I have no lordly proclamations about saving the environment, and I don't proclaim others who choose a different car are any more image conscious than myself.

Where there is a left wing tree hugging hippie, there is a world of self delusion.

A car isn't a car. It's just a 'status' symbol of an alternative kind to that of the supposed materialist. To look down ones nose at the supposed BMW driving 'I'm defined by my car' , while simultaneously deriving an anti materialist, environment saving, non-shallow image by bragging about your own car is one of the funniest things about you lot.

pynchme,

Not sure I wanted so much detail, but thanks anyway.

'If men would like workplace flexibility, why haven't they tried for it ? '
Because men are shackled by the 'societal expectations' of being the bread-winner;-) Any chick who meets a guy whose main aim in life is to work a 3 day week sees a 'loser' who's not gonna be able to afford to keep her when she has the babies. It narrows her life choices, and it narrows the flexibility of the employer, who sees a man without 'ambition'. A layabout. Looking at myself..., pretty accurate!

I have tried for 4 day weeks, but the look on my employers face said it all, and my need for a stable income with young children in a recession with the wife at home outweighs my need for career suicide. Employers are just much more 'understanding' if it's the chick who 'comes back part time' after maternity leave. If guys had Paternity leave, they might get a similar breaking down of expectations, but the feminists scream blue murder about keeping it 'maternity' leave rather than 'parental' leave.
Might be something to do with keeping it a 'womens' issue and the breast feeding nazis, or men 'riding off the back' of womens lobbing efforts, or being seen as gender envy me too whinging.

Anyway, I recognise my desire is a luxuary I can afford due to my salary. Many men have to work 60 hour weeks just to attain what would be my 3 day salary. Maybe that's why many men aren't so keen as me.

'Clearly it isn't working'.

I think it is working in absolute terms, just not in relative terms. But it's been shown people would rather be relatively richer and absolutely poorer.

'the biggest tax burden'
In percentages, not in dollars!

BTW: Romany is in China!

Houellebecq: You asked for information didn't you.
You make a lot of judgments about other people - and no need to entertain the word 'brave'; I would say 'indifferent' is more accurate.

The workplace flexibility proposals I put forward didn't include working less than a 40 hour week. Maybe you could reread that bit and ponder it a bit more. Your 3 days thing is fine - just being a part-timer or casual isn't it? Unless you mean you want to work about 13 hours a day.

My vision isn't that individuals bargain and scrape and bow to their Lords, but that for some industries it be an option made available to workers. No overtime rates, but more choice in when and where we work.
The Unions and bosses would have to work out what was possible for lots of different industry settings. Like what if all production could be done in 3 days? What if any employer could have halve the staff at work the first half of the week and then bring in the rest later in that week? What opportunities might that provide ?

Besides I want my paperless office!

I didn't know that any feminists were opposed to paternity or parental leave and can't imagine why they would be. I'm not; nor is anyone I know. Besides, do you or your boss always wait for feminists to tell you what hoop to jump through?

Blokes working 60 hours per week. Gee. Yet here you were saying that feminists work hard not smart. What a bunch of suckers to not only not even question a system that demands that of people; but to go to any length to defend it.

Examinator - hiya Zam - what you describe re: your son's Wii is exactly what I mean. Crazy stuff isn't it? Apparently some of us are working 60 hours a week, at detriment to family life, to buy junk we don't get around to using

Here's a report put together by St. Vinnie's on taxation and poverty and the like:

http://vinnies.org.au/files/pdfs/National/other/20030417-other_SubmissiontoSenateInquiryintoStructureofAustTaxationSystem.pdf

This link to a Word doc is from p. 3. Not sure if copy/pasting it will work here but it might:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/poverty/submissions/sub44.doc

The report also talks about the ways in which corporations and high income earners avoid taxation - such as through using tax havens outside Australia and through use of family trusts. For example, there are about 300,000 Australians living in extreme poverty. This report is a few years old - family trusts had grown to about 200,000. That is - represented at least 200,000 individuals at the other end of the social wealth scale. An example - and this person was claiming family benefits as well:

THE TAX TREATMENT OF FAMILY TRUSTS:
A CASE STUDY
An ACT café proprietor had a taxable income of:
$6,150 (later declared at almost $24,000 due to changes in tax treatment)
&#1048696; entitling her to family benefits
The Trust owned/provided:
&#1048696; the café &#1048696; a BMW
&#1048696; an executive retreat &#1048696; a Jaguar
&#1048696; rented accommodation, &#1048696; their son’s “exclusive” private school fees
&#1048696; various credit card accounts
Source: ACT Supreme Court

(Adel Horin (2001)
reported on a case in the
ACT Supreme Court in
which, through the use of
Trust legislation.

It's just not socially or morally just. It's not even basically honest.

Anyway, just FYI

Houellebecq,<If guys had Paternity leave, they might get a similar breaking down of expectations, but the feminists scream blue murder about keeping it 'maternity' leave rather than 'parental' leave."

Where on earth did you get that idea from? I am with Pynchme on this one. Most new mothers would give their eyeteeth to have the baby's father home to help care for the newborn. It is so much easier with the two parents there to support each other, even if just for a short while.

Many employers now have paid paternity or parental leave Houellebecq, and if we can thank the feminists or the anti-female brigade for this, it doesn't matter which!