Richard
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gnome wrote:No, it spreads the burden of this expense across the capitalist class as a whole.
I suppose that depends on your definition of "the capitalist class". Is someone who sells their labour, owes money on a mortgage, a credit card and a car loan a part of the capitalist class? Is someone whose ability to earn a living is dependent in large part on the whims of large corporations a capitalist? We may live in a capitalist society but that doesn't mean that everyone in our society is a capitalist. This is especially true in a corporate capitalist society.Money paid in taxes by the general public, by the working people, is money meant for public projects: public transit, healthcare, the social safety net, infrastructure, etc. Corporations sponge off the public purse by shifting the expense of scientific research to publicly funded agencies and then appropriating the results of that basic scientific research to develop consumer goodies that earn them a profit but often don't have much social benefit. Basic scientific research is not all that profitable and so corporations make minimal investment in research.This is to be expected in a society in which the government answers to corporate lobbyists and not to the voters.
True enough, SocialistPunk!Capitalists use publicly funded organizations to get their long-term R&D done; all that they're interested in is producing something that they can sell to make a profit (an F-35, an iPhone, it's all the same). Scientific research is necessary but it's something that they can outsource to government run agencies or universities that are largely maintained through public funds. I guess the bottom line for corporations is that State intervention in the "market" is a bad thing while State intervention in scientific research is a good thing because it shifts the expense of scientific research onto the public.
An interesting article. Keep in mind that there's a federal election coming up in October and Harper's Conservative Party is neck and neck in the polls with the Liberal Party with the NDP holding steady with a strong third place showing. My bet is on a Liberal minority supported by the NDP. Bye bye PM Harper, hello PM Trudeau! The "Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act” is simply Harper throwing some red meat to his hard-core base, just to try to shore up support. Hell, everything Stephen Harper does from now on is done with the election in mind.The Mormons out in BC do have to worry as charges have been laid in August 2014 against their members for taking young girls down to Texas for marriage. Canada and the US are cooperating on this.It will be interesting to see how Harper's new "Zero Tolerance" law deals with Muslim polygamy since charges against the Mormons have in the past been contested on the basis that the charges violated the right to religious freedom.I have zero tolerance for religion so as far as I'm concerned the Mormons and the Muslims and the orthodox Jews and the Catholic priests and all the rest of the religious nuts should all be thrown in jail for kiddie diddling. We don't need a new law for that.
Ozymandias wrote:Recently some poor guy in Telford succeeded in throwing himself to his death because of the encouraging shouts of "Jump", "Get on with it" and "How far can you bounce?" from a crowd of "Workers" below him. Some of these fuckin cretins were filming this horror on their smartphones then uploading it onto "social media" for a laugh. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. Well the smartphone phenomenon is making our glorious "working class" anything but smart. Let's face it they were a shower of stupid bastards before all of this…now made even more stupid with the emergence of this technology. They are more addicted, more myopic, more desensitised and more detached as a consequence. This is what you are dealing with now. The masters are turning them all into DRONES! You only have to look at the kids. World Socialism? That'll be right…FORGET IT!Capitalism encourages this sort of "F**k you, I'm okay!" attitude. This attitude seems to be built into human beings but capitalism draws it out and exacerbates it. We're taught that the whole point of life is to "get ahead" regardless of who you have to kick in the head on the way up. We're taught that other human beings are really just objects, not worthy of whatever empathy we may have. Combine this with the endless litany of violent images that we've all been exposed to and this incident in Telford doesn't surprise me one bit! I feel very sorry for the man who was not only driven to suicide but made the object of ridicule in his final minutes. I feel sorry for the people who shouted at him and ridiculed him. I won't return hate with hate, that road leads nowhere.Capitalism divides people and thus weakens them; keep 'em stupid, at each other's throats, and distracted with shiny baubles. The people at the top profit from this division of the rest of society. Divide and conquer: the oldest game in the world!
Meel wrote:i don't really believe that the brain is infinitely malleable and plastic,Maybe the brain doesn't need to be infinitely malleable. Maybe it just needs to be malleable enough to respond to stimuli within a narrow band. Human beings like to own things that we need for survival, marketers simply manipulate this natural tendency to create "needs" for things that we don't need for survival. They convince us that we need certain things for social survival; to keep up with the Joneses. Marketing is all about manipulating the mind to create false needs often using natural urges as a basis and the brain has to be just malleable enough to allow this creation of artificial needs.
robbo203,I read the review of "Born to Buy" and it sounds interesting. My question is how do you talk to children about consumerism when many adults themselves act like kids in a candy shop due to consumerist propaganda? I think most people would agree that marketing to children is wrong. The province of Quebec has had fairly strict laws regarding junk food marketing aimed at children since 1980. But the problem seems to be that most adults see nothing wrong with wanting more and more "stuff" and they pass these values, or lack of values, onto their children. We're all stuck in the marketing machine and it takes a lot of effort to unstick yourself!I've never read Gorz but he looks interesting. However technology can, I think, be neutral. Take television for example. TV could have been the greatest boon to adult education in generations but instead it became the "idiot box", the "boob tube", spewing vacuous programming and insane marketing at its audience. The medium of television was taken over by large corporations with large bank accounts and used for their own ends rather than as a public service. I see the Internet going the same way (thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for AdBlock Plus!). This is why I think that progressive political movements shouldn't shy away from using social media. Social media users tend to be young adults and those are the people we most need to get our message to. Regressive political movements understand this and are already past masters at using social media.
Capitalism is becoming more inefficient in its never ending quest for a higher margin of profit. A more efficient system would be to have a four-day work week with six hour shifts and higher pay per individual. But capitalism focuses on the short term profit (e.g., quarterly profits) and not on long term social wellbeing.This caught my eye:"The market is nothing more than a surface phenomenon, behind which lies the critical social relationship of unequal power, which means that focusing our efforts solely on regulation of the market ignores what is fundamental. So perhaps instead, we should make demands and take actions that threaten the market, that is, by directly attacking the power of those who are its masters and not accepting arrangements that allow the system to absorb our efforts and continue much as before. In addition, because the market is enveloped by an array of institutions – the state, media, schools – that buttress the power of those who control it, efforts to radically alter society must aim to change these as well."There is no market in the classical sense, not in a corporate capitalist system.The state, media and schools – all excellent conduits for propaganda, corporate propaganda.
A good article! The bit about Ayn Rand was true, she did live off taxpayer-funded social security while spouting off about the glory of greed. She also supported her husband who was a painter (he painted still life, not walls and ceilings). Hypocrite!I found this part of The Guardian article very interesting:"Even people simply primed to feel rich helped themselves to more sweets meant for children in a lab next door than those primed to feel disadvantaged. The reason, it turns out, is that even thoughts of being wealthy can create a feeling of increased entitlement…"This might explain why so many middle class people vote Conservative even though Conservative policies hurt the middle class. If middle class voters can be convinced that they are or will be wealthy then they'll vote Conservative.
Those are some very interesting looking links, robbo203!My take on this is similar to that of Meel, i.e., the technology is in its infancy and we don't really have enough history to draw firm conclusions.It seems to me that any technological society is, on the one hand, an atomised society and, on the other hand, a mass society. A mass of individuals lacking the traditional social connections. Technological society seems to require a mass of isolated individuals in order to ensure a malleable population geared to efficiency. The French author Jacques Ellul wrote about this and about the resulting need for constant propaganda to keep humans "adjusted" to a society based on what Ellul termed "technique". (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394703901)Regressive political parties and movements have embraced social media and the Internet and I think that progressive movements like ours should do the same. Technology probably will have long term effects on human behaviour but the technology is here to stay. I think this is something that requires a lot more study but in the meantime we should use Twitter, Facebook and text messaging to get the socialist message out there, especially to a new generation like the pre-teens in the Science Direct study you mentioned. Those pre-teens are bombarded with capitalist propaganda extolling the consumer lifestyle. By the time they're twenty, those pre-teens will be good little consumers , office workers and temp workers. Capitalists know how to get their message out, do socialists?
Vin wrote:Set back the developement of a class consious socialist movement. I think/hope we are reaching a turning point.The Soviet Union was really a disaster for the socialist movement in the West but, like you, I hope we will eventually move beyond that.One problem I've noticed on news forums is that people now equate North Korea with socialism! To me this indicates that these people either don't know what socialism is or they're posting on behalf of small-c conservative parties. They're tarnishing the reputation of socialism and maybe we need to start doing the same with capitalism.When I'm on forums I often pull statistics from various websites to illustrate unemployment, underemployment, homelessness, wage stagnation/inequality and other social problems in Canada and other nations. Then I ask people rhetorical questions: Is this the best capitalism can offer? Is there another way of doing things? Didn't they have soup kitchens during the Great Depression too? Is this progress? Who are the politicians working for?Start poking holes in capitalism's "good reputation" and people just might start looking around for alternatives.
stuartw2112 wrote:My point was that what counts as "basic comfort" is a socially determined thing. Richard wants his internet connection – something most of the world does not have, and that capitalism is all too eager to scramble to provide, and which presupposes a vast capitalist infrastructure, including mines. Having decent food produced by modern methods, even the greenest ones, presupposes oil – and hence the Middle East. Richard assures us that he doesn't need a TV or Coronation Street and is quite happy to live by books alone. But it's far from obvious that there's anything more to object to in a TV than in an Internet connection. Maybe I like Corrie, and am able to enjoy both that and Dostoevsky. What's wrong with that?In short, I agree with the implication made by others. Ethical consumerism makes no difference – except maybe to make its practitioners feel better about themselves. Nothing wrong with that – but it will not lead to the collapse of capitalism. And a damn good thing too since capitalism is how the world makes its living, and no alternative is on the agenda nor will be for the foreseeable future.I agree, "basic comfort" is obviously determined by societal values and our values are the product of generations of capitalist marketing/propaganda. You know your propaganda is really good when people don't recognise it as propaganda. Way to go, Mr. Bernays! Why does the Internet presuppose "a vast capitalist infrastructure"? Technological achievements often require large scale organization but it doesn't necessarily have to be along capitalist lines. Does the existence of the Middle East presuppose capitalism too? The world "makes its living" through capitalism? Ask someone in the Congo or the slums of Cairo or rural India how they enjoy making their living through capitalism. You have a very narrow definition of "the world".Anyway, I'm going to the shopping mall. Stuart says to forget about changing anything so why bother putting ideas out there! Enjoy your debating club!
jondwhite wrote:The focus on consumption is not socialist. We are concerned with production.I agree with you. However in order to increase profits through higher production and higher sales the capitalist system has to encourage greater and greater consumption. Under the current system we all fulfill two roles: worker and consumer. It's two sides of the same coin. The corporate capitalist system is designed to create consumer wants and then employ workers at the lowest possible wage to produce the goods to fulfill the wants created by marketing. I really don't believe that you can be concerned with production without taking consumerism into account.
DJP wrote:..So long as your definition agrees with yours right?So long as you feel comfortable with your definition of basic comforts. I'm just highlighting the fact that we're all subject to manipulation by marketing and I think that's the source of a lot of stress in society. Consumerism keeps capitalism humming happily along. If you're comfortable with that then go forth and consume!
stuartw2112 wrote:Besides, what is basic comfort? Would it include a car, a TV, a games console, ready meals, washing machine, etc,etc? And hence regular purchases of petrol and accessories, subscriptions to quality dramas, washing powders, etc, etc? Seems to me that capitalism could and does thrive on providing basic comforts!What you're describing are not basic comforts. You have to decide for yourself what "basic comforts" means. To me, the term means a roof over my head, nutritious food, good books to read and an Internet connection. I don't own a car (I live in Toronto and use public transit), I don't own a cell phone and I haven't owned a TV since 2007.Think about what you need to live comfortably (i.e., be well nourished in body and mind) and just cut out the rest. Marketing does a wonderful job of telling us what we want. We have to start tuning out that barrage of propaganda and deciding for ourselves what we need – as opposed to what we are told we "want" through marketing. Do you really need to watch the next episode of "Coronation Street"? Do you really need a car? Do you really need an iPhone? A game console?I've found that I'm a lot happier with a basic lifestyle and being self-employed than I was when I worked in an office environment and was "plugged in" to the consumerist machine. I have more time and less money and I'm happier.
ALB wrote:Not too sure about that, Richard. And if it did I don't think the result would necessarily be socialism.If we did it, more likely that capitalist employers would say "good, now we don't need to pay our workers so much" !Isn't that what they're doing anyway? Wages have been stagnant here in Canada and down in the States for 30 years. I suspect the situation is similar in the UK.In a capitalist system workers are simply a part of the cost of production, like office furniture or overhead lighting, and if corporations can pay us less then they will. All of these "free trade" deals that we've seen since the 1980s have been about allowing capital free movement around the world while restricting the movement of labour. This allows corporations to control the cost of labour on a global basis.Capitalism thrives on consumption. If you want to fight capitalism, fight the consumer culture it has spawned. Don't worry about your wages cause they're being slashed anyway! Capitalism will always find another middle-class market (e.g., China).
