This is a small note on my experience of reading.
No matter what i read, I'll gain some sense of it. Even if this "sense" is not in the spirit of what is written, what the author intends. The open ended nature of textual discourse, -the phenomenon of the subjective- means that no matter what is read it is full of meanings- intended or not. I read passages and even when i don't understand, the thoughts that come of it are meaningful, they lead on into different thoughts and etcetera. Much of the breadth that occurs in reading is this phenomena.
This is more obvious, and intended, in some respects, with fiction. However, for non-fiction the experience is the same. If you read, and you don't understand, the thought processes that ensue are as valuable as the intended meaning of what is written.
That is all i have to say.
Monday 6 September 2010
Friday 20 August 2010
On the End of Capitalism (and Humanity)
This post is intended to point out what seems to me to be an obvious yet highly unknown fact. Capitalism will inevitably destroy itself. As a Marxist I am inclined to argue that this will be done via revolutionary uprising by the Working Class. However, I believe this is one of only a few scenarios that may bring about an end to Capitalism. I will now discuss what I believe to be the next most likely cause to the end of Capitalism.
The Environment! Of all the stupidity and ignorance that exists within this system is the pure fact that it is damaging the environment and therefore us! Most disregard Global Warming, Climate Change and Pollution as I quote 'a conspiracy of the Left'. Granted this was said by Nick Griffin (leader of the far right British National Party), which for obvious reasons should not really be considered in any worthwhile argument. However the apparent lack of response to the environment issue (I.e. most recently the absolute failure of the Copenhagen Conference) from major countries such as USA and China or even the ever rising power block that is the EU.
Are we so ignorant enough to the scientific facts which I know are disputed by many to not understand that destroying out planet means we will inevitably destroy ourselves. Just because the causes of the rise in carbon dioxide levels are disputed, does not mean its not happening. We are with out a doubt polluting the Earth's Ozone Layer, which is letting in more rays of sunlight, which is warming up the planet. This in turn is causing the Ice caps to melt which is making the oceans have less salt water and more fresh water. This effects the temperature and current of the oceans which completely obstructs the Earths Eco systems. They can become hotter or colder, cause either a Minni Ice Age or mass droughts and ever expanding deserts as James Lovelock argues in his book 'The Revenge of Gaia'.
So how you may ask will this lead to an end to Capitalism. Its simple, messing around with our Eco systems will lead to problems with our food supplies. Which means less food for humanity, which means a lot of humans will die (as there are now in places like Africa but starvation will become a global phenomena). This would inevitably lead to a breakdown in society, I.e. War over the last of the Earths resources, mass riots, social collapse and eventually the collapse of civilisation as we know it. (Obviously there are other examples of the sort of consequences that are envisaged by scientists). Hence the collapse of Capitalism and quite possibly the end of Humanity. But don't worry this is just left wing propaganda created by the poor to scare the rich into giving up some of there money and change their lifestyle.
The Environment! Of all the stupidity and ignorance that exists within this system is the pure fact that it is damaging the environment and therefore us! Most disregard Global Warming, Climate Change and Pollution as I quote 'a conspiracy of the Left'. Granted this was said by Nick Griffin (leader of the far right British National Party), which for obvious reasons should not really be considered in any worthwhile argument. However the apparent lack of response to the environment issue (I.e. most recently the absolute failure of the Copenhagen Conference) from major countries such as USA and China or even the ever rising power block that is the EU.
Are we so ignorant enough to the scientific facts which I know are disputed by many to not understand that destroying out planet means we will inevitably destroy ourselves. Just because the causes of the rise in carbon dioxide levels are disputed, does not mean its not happening. We are with out a doubt polluting the Earth's Ozone Layer, which is letting in more rays of sunlight, which is warming up the planet. This in turn is causing the Ice caps to melt which is making the oceans have less salt water and more fresh water. This effects the temperature and current of the oceans which completely obstructs the Earths Eco systems. They can become hotter or colder, cause either a Minni Ice Age or mass droughts and ever expanding deserts as James Lovelock argues in his book 'The Revenge of Gaia'.
So how you may ask will this lead to an end to Capitalism. Its simple, messing around with our Eco systems will lead to problems with our food supplies. Which means less food for humanity, which means a lot of humans will die (as there are now in places like Africa but starvation will become a global phenomena). This would inevitably lead to a breakdown in society, I.e. War over the last of the Earths resources, mass riots, social collapse and eventually the collapse of civilisation as we know it. (Obviously there are other examples of the sort of consequences that are envisaged by scientists). Hence the collapse of Capitalism and quite possibly the end of Humanity. But don't worry this is just left wing propaganda created by the poor to scare the rich into giving up some of there money and change their lifestyle.
Wednesday 18 August 2010
The Idea of an Alternative
I’ve always flirted with the idea of existing in a totally new way. Zizek has pointed out that there is no real, visible alternative to global capitalism and that “There is a real possibility that the main victim of the ongoing crisis will not be capitalism but the left itself, insofar as its inability to offer a viable global alternative”. It is of huge importance that there is not a palpable opposition to capitalism. It is not as though the current framework for existence was planned with any precision; it is mostly arbitrary and damaging. So we can’t just sit here and assume that this is the way we should live, or that it can, “on its own” get better. But I don’t think there can be a unified response, a unified “viable global alternative”, a cogent agreement between strands of thought and people; there are disagreements at all levels.
I feel as some of these obstacles stem from the problem of language, that is, there is no necessary relationship between the words we use and the phenomena it describes- its truth. So we can say what we like, red is green, and nothing apart from reason (in this example) can tell the difference. The left, or whoever, can lay down their narratives on how to create the best society, and we are none the wiser that it’ll work, or that what they say describes reality at all. This is typically a problem for the Idea of communism- we’ll never know ‘till we try.
If we expand this idea, this “Problem of Language”, we get a much wider scope of the notion of cultural hegemony. The discourses that shape and weave our lives together are just one “package” (you could say) of a description of events and have no necessary correlation to what is going on. In this way we are blinded of the alternative version. For instance, gay marriage and Islamic law- one enables marriage as a viable option for two consenting couples, while Islamic Law rejects the notion of homosexuality. Cultural hegemony via the problem of language is manifested the discourses we use by virtue of their complete ignorance to truth. This means we don’t need some grand socio-political propaganda machine like the media, we are it. Not to play down the media’s role, after all they do a lot to sustain current discourses. It is from cultural hegemony that we should understand the prevalence of a lack of a "viable... alternative". And this plays out clearly when it concerns a unified response.
Another issue which in many ways is embedded in the problem of language but expresses itself differently, are the conceptions we have of the scope or area of change, or the institutions by which it could be precipitated or, in the more likely sense, negotiated. “The Government”, be it democratic or authoritarian is just one example of an idolized concept in politics and a failed institution to arbitrate national, regional and global politics. It some how, though, remains and would likely be the institution that would invoke this so called “viable global alternative” and it raises the issue of our inability to autonomously determine the answers to questions that tear at our most fundamental assumptions of how to conduct our political space or how to run an economy. Indeed, another example would be money, this concept, when articulating alternatives, is likely to embed itself as a useful part of our current framework. How would a unified response occur if the discourses used to construct such an alternative are flawed.
That which works to undermine our treasured discourses is sidelined or seldom even mentioned. There is a point where we can say that the lack of a "viable... alternative" is not so much sidelined or purposely not mentioned: there are to few alternative discourses to choose from in the public conciousness or space. This resonates the new-speak of 1984, how would one know they were oppressed if they had no concept or word for freedom. People don't have alternatives discourses at hand to re-evaluate their lives or the global political space. And therein lies the greater problem, the greatest barrier to change in a huge, revolutionary way, is our selves; not that we openly accept that or that we are conscious of it, or that we care.
As I said before, the hegemony we experience (the prevailing discourses we use to describe our reality) is subject to the Problem of language: no internal reference point for truth. Not only does this make the choice of discourse rather arbitrary, additionally, prevailing discourses, by virtue of them prevailing, sustain themselves in our use of them. This is a problem when we understand that the Viable Alternative must appear as a discourse, it must appear in public conciousness and fight to stay. When it appears, it will do so in an oppositional stance, on these terms how would a discourse sustain itself, if it speaks out and against our current framework from where does it receive it's strength?
It should be a huge concilation to many that despite these structural barriers i have listed we still have the idea of change- at least, some of us do. The agreement we should make is not the form of political organization that takes us away from capitalism, not the end result: after capitalism but the idea of change itself. The form of political organisation that precipitates "after" is one of many. As i have suggested, we cannot engineer a society because of the multiplicity of ideas but we can try to begin anew. This is not the end and not the best form of organization, but it's an attempt. It represents, in a very real way (although i'd like to say, symbolically) our self determination.
Here i am trying to reflect in simpler terms Zizeks notion of the Communist Idea- "one should 'begin from the beginning' not from the peak one may have successfully reached in the previous effort" echoing Lenin. Or, Badiou's Communist hypothesis; that we should "help a new modality of existence of the hypothesis come into being". Yet i would erase from this passage the words "communism" and read again. The "idea", the "hypothesis" is what we should hold onto and manifest into a locomotive for change.
If there is no possibility in a unified response, as i feel, then there semi autonomous groups attempting to carve out alternatives and we must wait for the "idea/hypothesis" some public consciousness, awareness and i hope a yearning, for change.
I feel as some of these obstacles stem from the problem of language, that is, there is no necessary relationship between the words we use and the phenomena it describes- its truth. So we can say what we like, red is green, and nothing apart from reason (in this example) can tell the difference. The left, or whoever, can lay down their narratives on how to create the best society, and we are none the wiser that it’ll work, or that what they say describes reality at all. This is typically a problem for the Idea of communism- we’ll never know ‘till we try.
If we expand this idea, this “Problem of Language”, we get a much wider scope of the notion of cultural hegemony. The discourses that shape and weave our lives together are just one “package” (you could say) of a description of events and have no necessary correlation to what is going on. In this way we are blinded of the alternative version. For instance, gay marriage and Islamic law- one enables marriage as a viable option for two consenting couples, while Islamic Law rejects the notion of homosexuality. Cultural hegemony via the problem of language is manifested the discourses we use by virtue of their complete ignorance to truth. This means we don’t need some grand socio-political propaganda machine like the media, we are it. Not to play down the media’s role, after all they do a lot to sustain current discourses. It is from cultural hegemony that we should understand the prevalence of a lack of a "viable... alternative". And this plays out clearly when it concerns a unified response.
Another issue which in many ways is embedded in the problem of language but expresses itself differently, are the conceptions we have of the scope or area of change, or the institutions by which it could be precipitated or, in the more likely sense, negotiated. “The Government”, be it democratic or authoritarian is just one example of an idolized concept in politics and a failed institution to arbitrate national, regional and global politics. It some how, though, remains and would likely be the institution that would invoke this so called “viable global alternative” and it raises the issue of our inability to autonomously determine the answers to questions that tear at our most fundamental assumptions of how to conduct our political space or how to run an economy. Indeed, another example would be money, this concept, when articulating alternatives, is likely to embed itself as a useful part of our current framework. How would a unified response occur if the discourses used to construct such an alternative are flawed.
That which works to undermine our treasured discourses is sidelined or seldom even mentioned. There is a point where we can say that the lack of a "viable... alternative" is not so much sidelined or purposely not mentioned: there are to few alternative discourses to choose from in the public conciousness or space. This resonates the new-speak of 1984, how would one know they were oppressed if they had no concept or word for freedom. People don't have alternatives discourses at hand to re-evaluate their lives or the global political space. And therein lies the greater problem, the greatest barrier to change in a huge, revolutionary way, is our selves; not that we openly accept that or that we are conscious of it, or that we care.
As I said before, the hegemony we experience (the prevailing discourses we use to describe our reality) is subject to the Problem of language: no internal reference point for truth. Not only does this make the choice of discourse rather arbitrary, additionally, prevailing discourses, by virtue of them prevailing, sustain themselves in our use of them. This is a problem when we understand that the Viable Alternative must appear as a discourse, it must appear in public conciousness and fight to stay. When it appears, it will do so in an oppositional stance, on these terms how would a discourse sustain itself, if it speaks out and against our current framework from where does it receive it's strength?
It should be a huge concilation to many that despite these structural barriers i have listed we still have the idea of change- at least, some of us do. The agreement we should make is not the form of political organization that takes us away from capitalism, not the end result: after capitalism but the idea of change itself. The form of political organisation that precipitates "after" is one of many. As i have suggested, we cannot engineer a society because of the multiplicity of ideas but we can try to begin anew. This is not the end and not the best form of organization, but it's an attempt. It represents, in a very real way (although i'd like to say, symbolically) our self determination.
Here i am trying to reflect in simpler terms Zizeks notion of the Communist Idea- "one should 'begin from the beginning' not from the peak one may have successfully reached in the previous effort" echoing Lenin. Or, Badiou's Communist hypothesis; that we should "help a new modality of existence of the hypothesis come into being". Yet i would erase from this passage the words "communism" and read again. The "idea", the "hypothesis" is what we should hold onto and manifest into a locomotive for change.
If there is no possibility in a unified response, as i feel, then there semi autonomous groups attempting to carve out alternatives and we must wait for the "idea/hypothesis" some public consciousness, awareness and i hope a yearning, for change.
Thursday 15 July 2010
Capitalism: Murder, Slavery and Vandalism.
I have a problem understanding the moral outrage at murder, slavery and vandalism- but the blindness to structural processes of capitalism. aka: what's pretty much built in. To not draw issue with these processes is typically picking and choosing what to care about and what to ignore. These processes influence, produce and regulate our actions.
The huge, obscene amount of deaths caused by the structural tendencies of capitalism renders it genocidal. This is brought into effect in many ways.
Statistically, poorer people live less. This is a washed over correlation that seems to shake few. This can be down to many reasons, poorer areas are dirtier, more enclosed, stress prone (maybe lack of money? or a lack of the ability to self-determine!?) they cannot cannot afford the same par of healthcare. What do you think all the issues over third world debt are about, these people arn't struggling to pay for their second house- because of their lack of money, they have no water, no food, poor infrastructure. The formula Money=Life should make sense of it all.
The ability of capitalism with it's incentive of money (which translates as... life) to organize and mobilize people for production (without the reality of everyone opposing such production, which perhaps links into slavery) is able to bring into existence a mass of weapons of destruction. Without such an apathetic labour force, insomuch as work is for money and not tied to what the work is. i.e. the manufacture of weapons, this would not be possible.
The same form of apathy is employed in capitalism with cost/benefit analysis. Cost is money lost, while benefit is money gained over money lost. The analysis is of money but the apathy deployed entails that people do not enter this equation. A good example is not the cutbacks of jobs for money, but the much used GDP of economies. This does not show the well being of people. People within a country could be dying but their GDP is up! Structurally this translates as the governments of those economies not being pressured for an increase in general welfare (GW?!) and not responding to the GW of it's people - while it has a growing economy and foreign investment, what's wrong!?
The capitalist relations with the environment can be described as an angry lumber jack chopping everything down. He, the capitalist, has a reason- plus, without his work there would be no living, and when he cuts trees down everything looks clearer and more civilized. But this description misses all the people standing in the forest or who are underneath the timbre.
Although, clearly, this ties in with vandalism, for capitalism drives industry which pollutes (and has a profit motive for avoiding environmental regulation shown by company moves to less regulated countries for profit) and vandalises the air, the ground and the sea, these repercussions are felt in the deaths of millions of people. Whether these deaths are past events, such as this; or current events, such as what we are breathing now, or the mobilization that's been able to mass produce and distribute tobacco alcohol and guns; or future events, either the somehow debatable erosion of the o zone layer, or any replication of past events.
The most difficult issue to level to people is that of slavery. Because of the past we think of slavery as a very overt conception whereby you literally need to be in chains. But this cannot be so. In fact it must not be so, it is an important concept with strong emotive implications and if we are to use it well it should be redefined. Most often it is understood as ownership of a person, but it could also be where a person is controlled via other methods. Slavery in it's broadest strokes should be seen as control that is not seen, or not understood. It the enslavement of your mind to assume that certain relations are OK. The slightest and most subtle formation of slavery, then, is born out of a hierarchy of relations. The family, the pub, the shop, the law, school, money, friendships. All these have hierarchies that if not addressed and unveiled are enslaving in as much as we become subject to them and most often respond with compliance. It is the lack of awereness of these oppressive relations (which could be reconfigured) that brings the term slavery. For instance, it isn't usually considered a problem that money defines, largely, what you can do.
However, this was just the broadest dynamic of slavery. It appears in far more classical terms (ownership, or non-evadable coercion) when we review the role of jobs/work and markets. Here, I will be drawing heavily on the The Coming Insurrection by The Invisible Committee. Simply put, to access the means to live we must get a job and earn money. TCI summarises this notion in the title of a chapter: "Life, health and love are precarious- why should work be an exception." Work is a structural necessity for capitalism, it "is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods and than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers and of preserving... the order of work" and of capitalism. We are trapped in the vortex of a confused economic and political system where, to access the means of life, we are forced to the imperative of getting a job and entering the market. Rather, it would be more appropriate to have access to the means of life. The argument here lies in the contrast, we have the technological capabilities to provide for people without charge, based on peoples input, but instead we ensure that money holds a monopoly over existence.
In another classical sense the wage-slavery concept comes into play. This suggests that people who work do not earn enough money to change their situation. However, other definitions are suggested like living for your wage, a case where your existence is dependant on you wage. There is no agreed definition- likely, because the term refers to many similar phenomenon. While the paragraph above refers to the imperative of money (aka, you need it), wage-slavery refers to ones abilities once they have money. (you're still not free!)
By far the easiest claim to level at capitalism is that of vandalism. Interestingly, this is not often a claim levelled at capitalism. When a company drops toxic waste in a river it is deemed to be the fault of the company- case closed. While this is true, it is the fault of the company and we cannot shed responsibility in that area, it ignores the scope of the problem. Here the company had the profit motive; it was cheaper to dispose of it down river. There was an incentive to vandalise, (which killed and maimed) systemically present in the capitalist framework (maximization of profits). This type is the typical vandalism that is more or less systemic in capitalism, companies have a huge incentive to tip waste products and avoid regulation for profit.
However we can ask deeper questions... why is it not considered vandalism when a company forces the foreclosure of family business, or even another business that has been bringing the community together (such as a pub or coffee house). We are forced to say, in the rhetoric of the market, that they weren't "efficient" enough, that they couldn't "compete"- this misses the issue entirely. Community comes second to capital.
If the foreclosure of small family business in favour of homogenized corporation can be levelled as the actions of a vandal, a similar form is present too. Governments that subsidize their industry, such as the E.U or US subsidy over farming, damage the market prospects of better products and undercuts the competition- isn't this a form of vandalism? essentially the direct sabotage of better companies in favour of the "national interest".
But why does the analysis only go as far as external property, what of ones mind, surely that can be vandalized. As an economic structure, capitalism has vastly influenced and defined the way we think. Instead of the altruistic helping of people, we employ help. Note the word, employ. We have a state of being that is closer to a relationship between things (objects, commodities) than between people. Quite often we choose friends in the same way we choose shampoo.
It may have spawned entire ways of thinking, the cultural imperative to get a job, pay taxes- being the sponge or the layabout- the life of an accountant- our response to the 2008 financial crash- being "working class"- insurance. All of these discourses are found within capitalism, and would very unlikely exist otherwise. Look at education, it is driven by, and held back by, money. In fact the curriculum itself is the by-product of a working society, we must work to work, we must, learn to work. Grades are geared towards achieving in the competitive job market and in many way serve to neutralize so many economic inequalities. The problem with assessing how capitalism makes us think is that it is the way we think, it is not obvious and requires imagining an almost alien reality.
As was reflected in an earlier paragraph, the organisational capabilities of capitalism rendering it a "murderer", and which make us alien (apathetic) to what it is we are doing, extends to vandalism. Needless to say, the extent of pollution; the foreclosure of community business; the subsidy of business; the overcrowding of space (with buildings) is only possible with mobilization capabilities which are present in capitalism, and the apathetic attitude which it instills.
I hope this post raises an empathetic and emotive attitude to the cards being dealt in this life, it really should stop, but it starts with the majority.
The huge, obscene amount of deaths caused by the structural tendencies of capitalism renders it genocidal. This is brought into effect in many ways.
Statistically, poorer people live less. This is a washed over correlation that seems to shake few. This can be down to many reasons, poorer areas are dirtier, more enclosed, stress prone (maybe lack of money? or a lack of the ability to self-determine!?) they cannot cannot afford the same par of healthcare. What do you think all the issues over third world debt are about, these people arn't struggling to pay for their second house- because of their lack of money, they have no water, no food, poor infrastructure. The formula Money=Life should make sense of it all.
The ability of capitalism with it's incentive of money (which translates as... life) to organize and mobilize people for production (without the reality of everyone opposing such production, which perhaps links into slavery) is able to bring into existence a mass of weapons of destruction. Without such an apathetic labour force, insomuch as work is for money and not tied to what the work is. i.e. the manufacture of weapons, this would not be possible.
The same form of apathy is employed in capitalism with cost/benefit analysis. Cost is money lost, while benefit is money gained over money lost. The analysis is of money but the apathy deployed entails that people do not enter this equation. A good example is not the cutbacks of jobs for money, but the much used GDP of economies. This does not show the well being of people. People within a country could be dying but their GDP is up! Structurally this translates as the governments of those economies not being pressured for an increase in general welfare (GW?!) and not responding to the GW of it's people - while it has a growing economy and foreign investment, what's wrong!?
The capitalist relations with the environment can be described as an angry lumber jack chopping everything down. He, the capitalist, has a reason- plus, without his work there would be no living, and when he cuts trees down everything looks clearer and more civilized. But this description misses all the people standing in the forest or who are underneath the timbre.
Although, clearly, this ties in with vandalism, for capitalism drives industry which pollutes (and has a profit motive for avoiding environmental regulation shown by company moves to less regulated countries for profit) and vandalises the air, the ground and the sea, these repercussions are felt in the deaths of millions of people. Whether these deaths are past events, such as this; or current events, such as what we are breathing now, or the mobilization that's been able to mass produce and distribute tobacco alcohol and guns; or future events, either the somehow debatable erosion of the o zone layer, or any replication of past events.
The most difficult issue to level to people is that of slavery. Because of the past we think of slavery as a very overt conception whereby you literally need to be in chains. But this cannot be so. In fact it must not be so, it is an important concept with strong emotive implications and if we are to use it well it should be redefined. Most often it is understood as ownership of a person, but it could also be where a person is controlled via other methods. Slavery in it's broadest strokes should be seen as control that is not seen, or not understood. It the enslavement of your mind to assume that certain relations are OK. The slightest and most subtle formation of slavery, then, is born out of a hierarchy of relations. The family, the pub, the shop, the law, school, money, friendships. All these have hierarchies that if not addressed and unveiled are enslaving in as much as we become subject to them and most often respond with compliance. It is the lack of awereness of these oppressive relations (which could be reconfigured) that brings the term slavery. For instance, it isn't usually considered a problem that money defines, largely, what you can do.
However, this was just the broadest dynamic of slavery. It appears in far more classical terms (ownership, or non-evadable coercion) when we review the role of jobs/work and markets. Here, I will be drawing heavily on the The Coming Insurrection by The Invisible Committee. Simply put, to access the means to live we must get a job and earn money. TCI summarises this notion in the title of a chapter: "Life, health and love are precarious- why should work be an exception." Work is a structural necessity for capitalism, it "is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods and than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers and of preserving... the order of work" and of capitalism. We are trapped in the vortex of a confused economic and political system where, to access the means of life, we are forced to the imperative of getting a job and entering the market. Rather, it would be more appropriate to have access to the means of life. The argument here lies in the contrast, we have the technological capabilities to provide for people without charge, based on peoples input, but instead we ensure that money holds a monopoly over existence.
In another classical sense the wage-slavery concept comes into play. This suggests that people who work do not earn enough money to change their situation. However, other definitions are suggested like living for your wage, a case where your existence is dependant on you wage. There is no agreed definition- likely, because the term refers to many similar phenomenon. While the paragraph above refers to the imperative of money (aka, you need it), wage-slavery refers to ones abilities once they have money. (you're still not free!)
By far the easiest claim to level at capitalism is that of vandalism. Interestingly, this is not often a claim levelled at capitalism. When a company drops toxic waste in a river it is deemed to be the fault of the company- case closed. While this is true, it is the fault of the company and we cannot shed responsibility in that area, it ignores the scope of the problem. Here the company had the profit motive; it was cheaper to dispose of it down river. There was an incentive to vandalise, (which killed and maimed) systemically present in the capitalist framework (maximization of profits). This type is the typical vandalism that is more or less systemic in capitalism, companies have a huge incentive to tip waste products and avoid regulation for profit.
However we can ask deeper questions... why is it not considered vandalism when a company forces the foreclosure of family business, or even another business that has been bringing the community together (such as a pub or coffee house). We are forced to say, in the rhetoric of the market, that they weren't "efficient" enough, that they couldn't "compete"- this misses the issue entirely. Community comes second to capital.
If the foreclosure of small family business in favour of homogenized corporation can be levelled as the actions of a vandal, a similar form is present too. Governments that subsidize their industry, such as the E.U or US subsidy over farming, damage the market prospects of better products and undercuts the competition- isn't this a form of vandalism? essentially the direct sabotage of better companies in favour of the "national interest".
But why does the analysis only go as far as external property, what of ones mind, surely that can be vandalized. As an economic structure, capitalism has vastly influenced and defined the way we think. Instead of the altruistic helping of people, we employ help. Note the word, employ. We have a state of being that is closer to a relationship between things (objects, commodities) than between people. Quite often we choose friends in the same way we choose shampoo.
It may have spawned entire ways of thinking, the cultural imperative to get a job, pay taxes- being the sponge or the layabout- the life of an accountant- our response to the 2008 financial crash- being "working class"- insurance. All of these discourses are found within capitalism, and would very unlikely exist otherwise. Look at education, it is driven by, and held back by, money. In fact the curriculum itself is the by-product of a working society, we must work to work, we must, learn to work. Grades are geared towards achieving in the competitive job market and in many way serve to neutralize so many economic inequalities. The problem with assessing how capitalism makes us think is that it is the way we think, it is not obvious and requires imagining an almost alien reality.
As was reflected in an earlier paragraph, the organisational capabilities of capitalism rendering it a "murderer", and which make us alien (apathetic) to what it is we are doing, extends to vandalism. Needless to say, the extent of pollution; the foreclosure of community business; the subsidy of business; the overcrowding of space (with buildings) is only possible with mobilization capabilities which are present in capitalism, and the apathetic attitude which it instills.
I hope this post raises an empathetic and emotive attitude to the cards being dealt in this life, it really should stop, but it starts with the majority.
Monday 12 July 2010
Post-Capitalism
Beyond Capitalism?
Could we exist in a world that had forgotten money? a world where value takes on a role only as a reference to a specific cultural conception, specific, again, in history? or a world, at least, which has chosen to organise itself. (so unlike the world today).
It could happen several ways. I mean, we could always choose to exist on a relational level other than via a transactional network of inherently unequal relations - it would however require the equal consent of the many land owners and engineers (etc) to happen. Or we can pay for this form of organisation (painfully, at that) by setting up sustainable infrastructure but, again, developing a set of relational networks that do not use money is required.
The trick to post capitalism, that is, the trick to achieve it, is rather relieving in simplicity. The current profit motive provides an ample framework for people to be driven ; the same way we are driven to work everyday - for MONEY, to want a post capital order. To have low costs on the essentials of life is to free people from work.
If governments, or the private sector can provide key aspects of existence for next to no cost the goal is in sight. Housing, water and food are the most important parts of this, to provide these next to cost is integral to a way of achieving post capitalism. None, in their current dimension are adequate, the housing market, for instance, is subject to rent seeking and more importantly, the current architectural design and environmental relationship is flawed. I.e. housing is monolithic, expensive, inappropriate. Really, it does not reflect the mobile and communitarian nature of people. Food is centralised, subsidised, and prosthetic. It needs to be grown and sustained and reproduced (in excess) by people on a decentralised basis. etcetcetcetc.
The idea is to make the fundamentals of existence replicable via social, rather than capitalist means.
There is no inherent reason why this has not been achieved. What barriers are there to this? I do not take answers such as labelling essential ideas of humans, i.e. we are greedy/stupid. It is apparent, and we can reconfigure this many times in different ways, that social existence can be and could be constructed in many different ways. Our social practises can be reconstructed at any moment. We are not subject to them, they are subject to us.
Apparently this is not so.
When the Banks failed, we bailed them out. For some reason no one was patiently sat there, waiting, poised, a symbol reflecting that repetitious volatility of capitalism and our self awareness of that fact. No one, for some obscene reason, was ready. But when they failed a "select group of people", because "we" certain didn't, poured lots of public ("our") money "saving" the banks. This was done to "save us" from the economy.
now why not just say, "oh." We have a system that we have little, passive, control over. We don't control our productivity, it does. (note the job losses and lower company profits since the meltdown) Our life, the apparent stability of it, is reliant on the economy being stable. NOW WHY DO WE DELEGATE THE POWER TO HAVE A STABLE LIFE INTO DISEMBODIED, UNSTABLE "ECONOMY".
It is an interesting state of affairs that we have the communication to achieve the post capitalist end... but don't.
I hope this post draws attention to the aims of post capitalism, the relative ease (in theory, apparently) of achieving it; the reconfigurable nature of social relations; the happy connection between the profit motive and it's stimulation of post capitalism (namely, that people want to avoid spending money); and the redundancy of now.
Could we exist in a world that had forgotten money? a world where value takes on a role only as a reference to a specific cultural conception, specific, again, in history? or a world, at least, which has chosen to organise itself. (so unlike the world today).
It could happen several ways. I mean, we could always choose to exist on a relational level other than via a transactional network of inherently unequal relations - it would however require the equal consent of the many land owners and engineers (etc) to happen. Or we can pay for this form of organisation (painfully, at that) by setting up sustainable infrastructure but, again, developing a set of relational networks that do not use money is required.
The trick to post capitalism, that is, the trick to achieve it, is rather relieving in simplicity. The current profit motive provides an ample framework for people to be driven ; the same way we are driven to work everyday - for MONEY, to want a post capital order. To have low costs on the essentials of life is to free people from work.
If governments, or the private sector can provide key aspects of existence for next to no cost the goal is in sight. Housing, water and food are the most important parts of this, to provide these next to cost is integral to a way of achieving post capitalism. None, in their current dimension are adequate, the housing market, for instance, is subject to rent seeking and more importantly, the current architectural design and environmental relationship is flawed. I.e. housing is monolithic, expensive, inappropriate. Really, it does not reflect the mobile and communitarian nature of people. Food is centralised, subsidised, and prosthetic. It needs to be grown and sustained and reproduced (in excess) by people on a decentralised basis. etcetcetcetc.
The idea is to make the fundamentals of existence replicable via social, rather than capitalist means.
There is no inherent reason why this has not been achieved. What barriers are there to this? I do not take answers such as labelling essential ideas of humans, i.e. we are greedy/stupid. It is apparent, and we can reconfigure this many times in different ways, that social existence can be and could be constructed in many different ways. Our social practises can be reconstructed at any moment. We are not subject to them, they are subject to us.
Apparently this is not so.
When the Banks failed, we bailed them out. For some reason no one was patiently sat there, waiting, poised, a symbol reflecting that repetitious volatility of capitalism and our self awareness of that fact. No one, for some obscene reason, was ready. But when they failed a "select group of people", because "we" certain didn't, poured lots of public ("our") money "saving" the banks. This was done to "save us" from the economy.
now why not just say, "oh." We have a system that we have little, passive, control over. We don't control our productivity, it does. (note the job losses and lower company profits since the meltdown) Our life, the apparent stability of it, is reliant on the economy being stable. NOW WHY DO WE DELEGATE THE POWER TO HAVE A STABLE LIFE INTO DISEMBODIED, UNSTABLE "ECONOMY".
It is an interesting state of affairs that we have the communication to achieve the post capitalist end... but don't.
I hope this post draws attention to the aims of post capitalism, the relative ease (in theory, apparently) of achieving it; the reconfigurable nature of social relations; the happy connection between the profit motive and it's stimulation of post capitalism (namely, that people want to avoid spending money); and the redundancy of now.
Wednesday 7 July 2010
Capitalism and Freedom
There is little connection, if any, to these two words acting as a title. Capitalism, does not necessitate, freedom. Both Fukuyama and Milton Friedman figured that capitalist markets are the purest expression of freedom - at least, as far as we can deduce. Friedman for his defence of a free market in promoting freedom, and Fukuyama for a market as an End State to humanity.
I am not going to attack the alleged relationship between capitalist markets and freedom by negating the suggestions by these two people or others nor by attacking the concept of freedom as incoherent, which it, pretty much, is. Quite simply, I am attacking the the state of being one has in a capitalist market, and our current understanding of freedom (assuming it is some coherent expression) within capitalism- and how that idea is internally fissured. In conclusion, i draw this together and suggest alternatives to experiencing freedom.
When we enter the capitalist framework several things become apparent, if you don't have the money for something, you cannot have it. While this is not a problem in it's most superficial aspects - no, you are not allowed to own the ferrari- it is hugely problematical when we consider that this person cannot have the best healthcare. It is a difficulty where that person cannot have clean water, or cannot have a safe home or get the best education.
Not only is the quality of, and access to, a service being arbitrated by the amount of money you have, but there is the internal problem that the service quality itself is negotiated by it's access to money.
One must exist based in relation to their capital, the ability to "do" is ultimately de-limited to what they can afford. This ranks next to: the length and quality of our life has a relationship with money.
This is our current social organisation. Where action is precipitated far quicker by money than by effort and ingenuity. (unless we replace effort with how much money you put in, and ingenuity to the subtle allocation of money.) And this is the quintessential problem when framed according to our capacity for freedom. How free are you where your actions are arbitrated by some paper, and the extent of your actions are arbitrated by paper. Simplistically, but this really does get to the heart of it: if i have a ten pounds, i am far more free than the person with none.
We often go for an account of freedom and organisation based on liberalism. This account of freedom, of morality, of organisation, sounds something like: "we are all equal" and "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others." It sounds oddly utilitarian. However this notion of liberalism is curiously tied up with capitalism and in fact, surely, it is at odds with itself. The typical liberal account of what it means to be free, or even some of it's fundamental tenets such as "equality" and "rights" are under heavy fire in a capitalist market. In this way it seems there is a severe confusion over what it means to exist freely and our relationship to the economic model of capitalism. This confusion is amplified to a state of delusion when the two ideas are connected, and there is no apparent contradiction.
The idea is further and far more obviously confused when we look at economic liberalism (an extreme strand of capitalism) in it's relationship and even it's root in liberalism. Why is there even an academic strand that goes as far as connecting philosophical liberalism to economic liberalism when the two are most certainly at odds. It seems perverse to suggest, that in an unregulated market, any sense of liberalism can hold out: we would not be equal, have equal things, or even basic rights. We would be as free as how much money we have.
It also raises the observation of having a moral model which is internally fissured in logic but externally coherent in perception, in its marriage within a capitalist existence. Not only does this highlight the lack of necessity, in accuracy, between language and things, it also goes to show how perception can define our relations. With this in mind, freedom becomes a far more important concept. Our idea of freedom becomes the measure of freedom, we have a position of philosophical liberalism and this exists alongside capitalism and this is not a problem? This is not contradictory? This doesn't make us revolt - because, for some reason, this is what it means to be free. This is a pretty convenient state of affairs for us.
In conclusion an excerpt from wikipedia really sets the groundwork, "Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom" this is the sounding of Fukuyama and Friedman, that freedom in it's totality can be gleamed by the existence of economic freedom. The assumption that economic freedom should take the form of capitalism is sick - indeed, the fact the the words economic liberalism and economic freedom signify capitalist markets is sick. There is little relationship between capitalism and freedom especially when they are seen as distinct states of affairs. Capitalism often undermines freedom.
If social and political freedom has an integral relationship to the economy, and we know the social and political freedoms we want (broadly speaking a form of liberalism and democracy), we can engineer an economy; simply, we should be developing an economy that does not work on scarcity or profit and removes the totality of capitalism (the fact that everything- even food and water- costs) from our lives. We should develop an economy based on social action, human action, rather than that which is motivated by profit or money to achieve social and political freedom. In this way we agree with the quote, when economic freedom ceases to mean capitalism, no matter the strand, and begins to mean economic freedom - then we'll have freedom.
I am not going to attack the alleged relationship between capitalist markets and freedom by negating the suggestions by these two people or others nor by attacking the concept of freedom as incoherent, which it, pretty much, is. Quite simply, I am attacking the the state of being one has in a capitalist market, and our current understanding of freedom (assuming it is some coherent expression) within capitalism- and how that idea is internally fissured. In conclusion, i draw this together and suggest alternatives to experiencing freedom.
When we enter the capitalist framework several things become apparent, if you don't have the money for something, you cannot have it. While this is not a problem in it's most superficial aspects - no, you are not allowed to own the ferrari- it is hugely problematical when we consider that this person cannot have the best healthcare. It is a difficulty where that person cannot have clean water, or cannot have a safe home or get the best education.
Not only is the quality of, and access to, a service being arbitrated by the amount of money you have, but there is the internal problem that the service quality itself is negotiated by it's access to money.
One must exist based in relation to their capital, the ability to "do" is ultimately de-limited to what they can afford. This ranks next to: the length and quality of our life has a relationship with money.
This is our current social organisation. Where action is precipitated far quicker by money than by effort and ingenuity. (unless we replace effort with how much money you put in, and ingenuity to the subtle allocation of money.) And this is the quintessential problem when framed according to our capacity for freedom. How free are you where your actions are arbitrated by some paper, and the extent of your actions are arbitrated by paper. Simplistically, but this really does get to the heart of it: if i have a ten pounds, i am far more free than the person with none.
We often go for an account of freedom and organisation based on liberalism. This account of freedom, of morality, of organisation, sounds something like: "we are all equal" and "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others." It sounds oddly utilitarian. However this notion of liberalism is curiously tied up with capitalism and in fact, surely, it is at odds with itself. The typical liberal account of what it means to be free, or even some of it's fundamental tenets such as "equality" and "rights" are under heavy fire in a capitalist market. In this way it seems there is a severe confusion over what it means to exist freely and our relationship to the economic model of capitalism. This confusion is amplified to a state of delusion when the two ideas are connected, and there is no apparent contradiction.
The idea is further and far more obviously confused when we look at economic liberalism (an extreme strand of capitalism) in it's relationship and even it's root in liberalism. Why is there even an academic strand that goes as far as connecting philosophical liberalism to economic liberalism when the two are most certainly at odds. It seems perverse to suggest, that in an unregulated market, any sense of liberalism can hold out: we would not be equal, have equal things, or even basic rights. We would be as free as how much money we have.
It also raises the observation of having a moral model which is internally fissured in logic but externally coherent in perception, in its marriage within a capitalist existence. Not only does this highlight the lack of necessity, in accuracy, between language and things, it also goes to show how perception can define our relations. With this in mind, freedom becomes a far more important concept. Our idea of freedom becomes the measure of freedom, we have a position of philosophical liberalism and this exists alongside capitalism and this is not a problem? This is not contradictory? This doesn't make us revolt - because, for some reason, this is what it means to be free. This is a pretty convenient state of affairs for us.
In conclusion an excerpt from wikipedia really sets the groundwork, "Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom" this is the sounding of Fukuyama and Friedman, that freedom in it's totality can be gleamed by the existence of economic freedom. The assumption that economic freedom should take the form of capitalism is sick - indeed, the fact the the words economic liberalism and economic freedom signify capitalist markets is sick. There is little relationship between capitalism and freedom especially when they are seen as distinct states of affairs. Capitalism often undermines freedom.
If social and political freedom has an integral relationship to the economy, and we know the social and political freedoms we want (broadly speaking a form of liberalism and democracy), we can engineer an economy; simply, we should be developing an economy that does not work on scarcity or profit and removes the totality of capitalism (the fact that everything- even food and water- costs) from our lives. We should develop an economy based on social action, human action, rather than that which is motivated by profit or money to achieve social and political freedom. In this way we agree with the quote, when economic freedom ceases to mean capitalism, no matter the strand, and begins to mean economic freedom - then we'll have freedom.
Saturday 26 June 2010
My analysis of football (on wine)
A terrible travesty, if there ever was one, to have burdened the earth and poisoned our minds... Unlike wine.
I wrote on last fm...
"haha. I'd rather listen to about three tracks of godspeed... (around 90min, funnily enough) than watch football... I genuinly can't stand the attachment of a team to a country.... it makes no sense.. just cus they're called england does not mean they represent engand... thats like me whacking an AA badge on myself gettin hammered, killing a prostitute and then having people blame AA for sobriety induced stress."
then i giggled...
Sport is great. Sure, i'll give you that one. Definitely two thumbs up for entertainment and competition. But the climactic juncture of football induced frenzy, frothing mouthed people, is enough for me to "thumb-down" signalling, kill this awful abomination of satan-spawn stricken puke piece.
Here are my personal grievances, listed, numerically, for you:
1. Football has been obsessively bought into, which makes sense considering the size of the market, but this means mental rape every time i go near a media source.
2. The attachment of England (the team) as England (the country) and the ensuing nationalism... my team my country blablabla. The same approach goes for more local football clubs...
epitomized by the language "we beat them" as though our locality somehow connects us.
i wish it did.
3. they are paid to much. Based on basic supply and demand... they don't - but concerning the extent of world problems.... >> they should get paid faaaar less.
4. It's boring.
i don't think i even have that many points... and i don't think i even have a problem with football that much... just
GET OVER IT.
the wineage is calling.
I wrote on last fm...
"haha. I'd rather listen to about three tracks of godspeed... (around 90min, funnily enough) than watch football... I genuinly can't stand the attachment of a team to a country.... it makes no sense.. just cus they're called england does not mean they represent engand... thats like me whacking an AA badge on myself gettin hammered, killing a prostitute and then having people blame AA for sobriety induced stress."
then i giggled...
Sport is great. Sure, i'll give you that one. Definitely two thumbs up for entertainment and competition. But the climactic juncture of football induced frenzy, frothing mouthed people, is enough for me to "thumb-down" signalling, kill this awful abomination of satan-spawn stricken puke piece.
Here are my personal grievances, listed, numerically, for you:
1. Football has been obsessively bought into, which makes sense considering the size of the market, but this means mental rape every time i go near a media source.
2. The attachment of England (the team) as England (the country) and the ensuing nationalism... my team my country blablabla. The same approach goes for more local football clubs...
epitomized by the language "we beat them" as though our locality somehow connects us.
i wish it did.
3. they are paid to much. Based on basic supply and demand... they don't - but concerning the extent of world problems.... >> they should get paid faaaar less.
4. It's boring.
i don't think i even have that many points... and i don't think i even have a problem with football that much... just
GET OVER IT.
the wineage is calling.
Friday 11 June 2010
Language and educational performance.
I almost misspelt and published "performance" missing the N. We'd have a case of perfor-mace, like i could spray it in your eyes and, yes, i do believe you performance would be lowered. Sadly this post is not about macing people, although i think that might a be a fun topic.
This is about our capacity to use and understand language, and it's relationship to educational performance/attainment.
A sociologist Bernstein did a study which illustrated the use of Restricted and Elaborate language which are the ideas, the impetus from where i am drawing on. His ideas cover the implicit meaning in language, which, when kept implicit constitute restricted code.
i don't think this is a fair presentation of Bernstein and by google(ing) or just clicking here, you can read about him.
Lucky for Bernstein, his fans, and by causality, me, this is not about Bernstein.
Through socialization, of family, media, school, reading books playing games - essentially- through our remembered experiences we collect, learn and disseminate language.
But it is the case that certain groups are less fortunate than others in their control over language, i mean, typically, i'm talking about class, but that doesn't explain it.
Instead, ill introduce the idea of social capital (in this sense, the collected "social" - here, language) and say there is a correlation between class and social capital.
But my actual point is simply that it is not over, and we still have (no matter the class) a big problem with language and educational performance.
A few days ago, and this is the reason for writing this, (just to provide a small explanation) an English question used the word "provocative" and the student didn't understand.
Language is a serious barrier to educational performance, and i'd even go as far to say, some ones understanding of the world.
This is about our capacity to use and understand language, and it's relationship to educational performance/attainment.
A sociologist Bernstein did a study which illustrated the use of Restricted and Elaborate language which are the ideas, the impetus from where i am drawing on. His ideas cover the implicit meaning in language, which, when kept implicit constitute restricted code.
i don't think this is a fair presentation of Bernstein and by google(ing) or just clicking here, you can read about him.
Lucky for Bernstein, his fans, and by causality, me, this is not about Bernstein.
Through socialization, of family, media, school, reading books playing games - essentially- through our remembered experiences we collect, learn and disseminate language.
But it is the case that certain groups are less fortunate than others in their control over language, i mean, typically, i'm talking about class, but that doesn't explain it.
Instead, ill introduce the idea of social capital (in this sense, the collected "social" - here, language) and say there is a correlation between class and social capital.
But my actual point is simply that it is not over, and we still have (no matter the class) a big problem with language and educational performance.
A few days ago, and this is the reason for writing this, (just to provide a small explanation) an English question used the word "provocative" and the student didn't understand.
Language is a serious barrier to educational performance, and i'd even go as far to say, some ones understanding of the world.
Tuesday 8 June 2010
The Eras of History
The aim of this blog is to give people a better understanding of what it is historians actually do and how varied their area of study can be. It is also worth noting that its not just era historians tend to specialise in but also geography, historical school (historiography) and the type of history as well. For example I would class myself as a Late Modern/Contemporary Marxist Historian of European Socio-Political History, with a main focus on Britain, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I also often look into the 'Great Man theory' of history. Indeed, a historian is very specific and never general about what he/she studies unless they work within the Annals School of history.
Prehistory - history from the beginning of life on Earth up until the first accounts of written in history. Which is roughly between 5000BC and 3500BC. Can be narrowed down to:
- Stone Age
- Bronze Age
- Iron Age
Note: some have argued that the Big Bang itself is the beginning of prehistory.
Antiquity - This tends to cover Mesopotamia right up until the end of the Classics. For example it includes:
- Ancient Egypt
- Ancient Rome
- Ancient Greece
- Persian Empire
and many others.
Middle Ages (Medieval) - Subsequently at the end of the Roman Empire, the Middles Ages begins around roughly 500ad. It can be divided into three sub eras:
- Early Middle Ages approx. 500ad - 1000ad (Dark Ages)
- High Middle Ages approx. 1000ad - 1300ad
- Late Middle Ages approx. 1300ad - 1500ad (Renaissance)
Modern - You then have Modern history which again can be narrowed down to three sub eras:
- Early Modern approx. 1500ad - 1750ad (Enlightenment approx 1637ad - 1804ad) (Debated)
- Late Modern approx. 1750ad - 1989ad (Industrial Revolution approx. 1780ad - 1890ad) (World War I 1914ad - 1918ad, World War II 1939ad - 1945ad and the Cold War 1946ad - 1989ad) (Industrial Revolution and Cold War dates are highly debated)
- Contemporary Modern 0r Post-Modern approx. 1989ad - present (Collapse of Communism)
Note: this is highly debated by historians and therefore this should not be taken as dogma. For example some argue that the Contemporary era begins in 1900ad. I can agree to this to some extent as their are still people alive from that date. (Or there was when I last checked). Therefore we can argue that Contemporary history begins with the birth date of the oldest person on the planet as Contemporary means to 'be there' or 'eye witness'.
Some Historians debate all of this, this is the 'popular' and also my accepted eras of history.
The reason I have done this is because people often make the mistake of thinking historians study all history. this is not so, it would be impossible. Indeed I do find pretty much all history interesting. However as an Academic I only tend to study the Late modern and Contemporary Eras.
Note: This is all due to change as new evidence is uncovered everyday. For example it is hypothesized that there was a civilisation before Mesopotamia in Greenland or Antarctica.
- So now the question is, whats next? There is a subject within history known as Futurism. This is the study of what possibilities may occur in the future, be it immediate or distant. Futurists tend to see Post Modern as a different era to Contemporary History.
Prehistory - history from the beginning of life on Earth up until the first accounts of written in history. Which is roughly between 5000BC and 3500BC. Can be narrowed down to:
- Stone Age
- Bronze Age
- Iron Age
Note: some have argued that the Big Bang itself is the beginning of prehistory.
Antiquity - This tends to cover Mesopotamia right up until the end of the Classics. For example it includes:
- Ancient Egypt
- Ancient Rome
- Ancient Greece
- Persian Empire
and many others.
Middle Ages (Medieval) - Subsequently at the end of the Roman Empire, the Middles Ages begins around roughly 500ad. It can be divided into three sub eras:
- Early Middle Ages approx. 500ad - 1000ad (Dark Ages)
- High Middle Ages approx. 1000ad - 1300ad
- Late Middle Ages approx. 1300ad - 1500ad (Renaissance)
Modern - You then have Modern history which again can be narrowed down to three sub eras:
- Early Modern approx. 1500ad - 1750ad (Enlightenment approx 1637ad - 1804ad) (Debated)
- Late Modern approx. 1750ad - 1989ad (Industrial Revolution approx. 1780ad - 1890ad) (World War I 1914ad - 1918ad, World War II 1939ad - 1945ad and the Cold War 1946ad - 1989ad) (Industrial Revolution and Cold War dates are highly debated)
- Contemporary Modern 0r Post-Modern approx. 1989ad - present (Collapse of Communism)
Note: this is highly debated by historians and therefore this should not be taken as dogma. For example some argue that the Contemporary era begins in 1900ad. I can agree to this to some extent as their are still people alive from that date. (Or there was when I last checked). Therefore we can argue that Contemporary history begins with the birth date of the oldest person on the planet as Contemporary means to 'be there' or 'eye witness'.
Some Historians debate all of this, this is the 'popular' and also my accepted eras of history.
The reason I have done this is because people often make the mistake of thinking historians study all history. this is not so, it would be impossible. Indeed I do find pretty much all history interesting. However as an Academic I only tend to study the Late modern and Contemporary Eras.
Note: This is all due to change as new evidence is uncovered everyday. For example it is hypothesized that there was a civilisation before Mesopotamia in Greenland or Antarctica.
- So now the question is, whats next? There is a subject within history known as Futurism. This is the study of what possibilities may occur in the future, be it immediate or distant. Futurists tend to see Post Modern as a different era to Contemporary History.
Monday 7 June 2010
Competitative Markets, A Fault In Design?
This idea is not mine and although i haven't read any literature about it, no doubt someone has been able to illustrate this faaaaar clearer than me:
In any competitive preference catching system (of units, e.g. votes/money), occupation of the centre of preference is, tactically, the best decision. In real life, this is an abysmal flaw.
This was a Facebook post.
The idea is that where the collection of units is needed, the collector will sit in the most effective area for that collection.
Take, for example, an idea from a book called something like: dumbing down. The book argues that media (as it is within a market) occupies the centre (in terms of what it shows and the complexity of what it shows) because this is where the market share is.
You don’t buy a paper if it appears to complicated, you don’t buy a paper if it is mind numbingly simple.
Now, the effect of this is… an average of STUPIDITY!
Why?
People are reading magazines, newspapers and watching news, films and television... that have been designed to occupy the centre and collect the most money.
In a competitive market challenging the way a reader thinks and challenging their ability to read is monetary suicide. There is a market for it, but it is NO where near as big.
An example in politics shouldn't be difficult. After all, in the UK and the US, the main political parties occupy the centre: Mediocre language complexity and hazy policy commitments (unless useful), avoidance of divisive issues (also, unless useful).
Look at the debates, after all, there wasn’t an in depth discussion using complicated language… it was politicking.
The centre is more or less, the status quo. It is the area the majority occupy.
The status quo is an IQ near 100.
A preference of hedonism (pleasure/entertainment).
And finally an implicit acceptance of capitalism.
The effect of this, i think, to some extent, is a dumbing down (or, simplification) of language and media. A slimming of choices where a group has monopolised the centre. A homogenization of culture. And a replication of the status quo, e.g. capitalism and IQ averages. Overall, a replication and simplification of ideas.
Not really a good thing.
In any competitive preference catching system (of units, e.g. votes/money), occupation of the centre of preference is, tactically, the best decision. In real life, this is an abysmal flaw.
This was a Facebook post.
The idea is that where the collection of units is needed, the collector will sit in the most effective area for that collection.
Take, for example, an idea from a book called something like: dumbing down. The book argues that media (as it is within a market) occupies the centre (in terms of what it shows and the complexity of what it shows) because this is where the market share is.
You don’t buy a paper if it appears to complicated, you don’t buy a paper if it is mind numbingly simple.
Now, the effect of this is… an average of STUPIDITY!
Why?
People are reading magazines, newspapers and watching news, films and television... that have been designed to occupy the centre and collect the most money.
In a competitive market challenging the way a reader thinks and challenging their ability to read is monetary suicide. There is a market for it, but it is NO where near as big.
An example in politics shouldn't be difficult. After all, in the UK and the US, the main political parties occupy the centre: Mediocre language complexity and hazy policy commitments (unless useful), avoidance of divisive issues (also, unless useful).
Look at the debates, after all, there wasn’t an in depth discussion using complicated language… it was politicking.
The centre is more or less, the status quo. It is the area the majority occupy.
The status quo is an IQ near 100.
A preference of hedonism (pleasure/entertainment).
And finally an implicit acceptance of capitalism.
The effect of this, i think, to some extent, is a dumbing down (or, simplification) of language and media. A slimming of choices where a group has monopolised the centre. A homogenization of culture. And a replication of the status quo, e.g. capitalism and IQ averages. Overall, a replication and simplification of ideas.
Not really a good thing.
Thursday 20 May 2010
Historical Periodisation (the events that lead to the next stage)
The aim of this blog is to present the Marxist theory on history up until the present day. I will not go beyond Capitalism because the next epoch is yet to happen and history is not about predicition. It is about facts and how we analyse and speculate these facts.
The current identified epochs of history within the Marxist framework are:
Primitive Communism: Humanity organised itself into tribes. At roughly 10 000 BC mankind experiences the agricultural revolution. Somewhere between 10 000 BC and 5500 BC private property and urban societies begin to emerge. From here the first Human civilisation begins to emerge. We know it as Mesopotamia. Thus begins the period of the slave society.
Slave Society: This period begins with the emergence of Mesopotamia. From here other civilisations emerge. Most notably Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. (Others include the ancient civilisations of South America and Asia.) Between 320 ad and 340 ad Rome coverts to Christianity. Thus begins the period of Feudalism.
Feudalism: With the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire, Smaller Kingdoms begin to fill the power vacuum. Landowners or the Aristocracy own the means of production, which in Federalism are farms, which is known as an agrarian economy. With the discovery of the Americas and the emergence of the 'Merchant Classes' the economy began to change into a consumer society and eventually led to the Industrial Revolution and this began Capitalism.
Capitalism: With the emergence of the merchant class, so consumerism began to emerge in society. With increase in demand, new methods of production were required. (there was an increase in demand because of the Black Death which killed half of the British population. As a result of this the Aristocracy no longer had a hold over the peasants. This was because with so few labourers peasants began to charge a lot of money for their services. As a result of this the market for consumer goods grew exponentially). The Capitalist classes begin to emerge. The Aristocracy begin to lose power and therefore fight for it. This leads to the English Civil War. Capitalist's back the Parliamentarians and the Aristocracy back the Royalists. Parliament wins and so does Capitalism over Feudalism. The Industrial Revolution begins and the Aristocracy is slowly wiped out and the Working class begins to emerge.
Who knows whats next? There are many theories and this one is the Marxist one. However as this blog is not about Marxism in general I will no go into predictions as I only wish to present the current social epochs of history.
The current identified epochs of history within the Marxist framework are:
Primitive Communism: Humanity organised itself into tribes. At roughly 10 000 BC mankind experiences the agricultural revolution. Somewhere between 10 000 BC and 5500 BC private property and urban societies begin to emerge. From here the first Human civilisation begins to emerge. We know it as Mesopotamia. Thus begins the period of the slave society.
Slave Society: This period begins with the emergence of Mesopotamia. From here other civilisations emerge. Most notably Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. (Others include the ancient civilisations of South America and Asia.) Between 320 ad and 340 ad Rome coverts to Christianity. Thus begins the period of Feudalism.
Feudalism: With the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire, Smaller Kingdoms begin to fill the power vacuum. Landowners or the Aristocracy own the means of production, which in Federalism are farms, which is known as an agrarian economy. With the discovery of the Americas and the emergence of the 'Merchant Classes' the economy began to change into a consumer society and eventually led to the Industrial Revolution and this began Capitalism.
Capitalism: With the emergence of the merchant class, so consumerism began to emerge in society. With increase in demand, new methods of production were required. (there was an increase in demand because of the Black Death which killed half of the British population. As a result of this the Aristocracy no longer had a hold over the peasants. This was because with so few labourers peasants began to charge a lot of money for their services. As a result of this the market for consumer goods grew exponentially). The Capitalist classes begin to emerge. The Aristocracy begin to lose power and therefore fight for it. This leads to the English Civil War. Capitalist's back the Parliamentarians and the Aristocracy back the Royalists. Parliament wins and so does Capitalism over Feudalism. The Industrial Revolution begins and the Aristocracy is slowly wiped out and the Working class begins to emerge.
Who knows whats next? There are many theories and this one is the Marxist one. However as this blog is not about Marxism in general I will no go into predictions as I only wish to present the current social epochs of history.
Tuesday 18 May 2010
Alternative business models for the media industry?
With the rise of p2p networking, pirate bay, bit torrent, the media industry fears a loss of profits. The old business model of making films, music and ideas scarce is coming to a CLOSE.
So what next?
I don't pretend to be an entrapeneur or any good at "business", but i have a few ideas. Although some stand alone, or are incompatable with eachother, some go together. (such as sponsorship/advertising with all of them)
I like the idea of using public viewing arenas, open areas with a viewing screen to attract people. Such an event would be ample to gain recognition for creativity, sell merchanidise, advertise and perhaps have pay per...something. The reason this would be useful, hopefully, is the quality of service. For instance where a good film exists, it is usually made better by good audio/visual equipment: best found at the venue.
An advertising model has already been discussed. It may also include (rather than just advertising) the use of codes for consumers to get discount, which also gains the venue (where the consumer recieved the code) income from the advertiser.
An advertising model has already been discussed. It may also include (rather than just advertising) the use of codes for consumers to get discount, which also gains the venue (where the consumer recieved the code) income from the advertiser.
Generating an emphsis on public sponsorship of the events and advertisers is also important.
I think an awesome idea, you might disagree, is actors doing re dramatizations of films, either in a lower budget or through a play. Essentially inverting the original format for something different.
I think an awesome idea, you might disagree, is actors doing re dramatizations of films, either in a lower budget or through a play. Essentially inverting the original format for something different.
For muscicians i believe the best model, and i think it's used. Is to link the conciouness of social networking with live gigs. In short, play where you are wanted. The same could work for film. This has a greater chance of being a good investment due to the receptivness and personal input of the consumer/audience, you are more likley to have people buy merchandise and sponsor.
With the gaming industry, which is growing ridiculously fast, open sourcing their codes is the best way to get the most out of games. Indeed, i actually believe that open sourcing gaming will make the medium far more powerful and innovative. (hah, and cheaper)
With the gaming industry, which is growing ridiculously fast, open sourcing their codes is the best way to get the most out of games. Indeed, i actually believe that open sourcing gaming will make the medium far more powerful and innovative. (hah, and cheaper)
When it comes down to it, media is social so we should tune into that.
Wednesday 12 May 2010
Anarchist Communism (an attempted theory to unify the Far Left in a response to Capitalism)
This is a response to KC's blog on how there can not be a 'viable alternative to global capitalism'. I say there can! The problem is everyone wants there alternative to be perfect. This is indeed impossible, there has to be a compromise. If the Far Left unify then Capitalism can at last have a viable alternative. (I use the term far left because the left I.e. Social Democracy, Social Liberalism, Centrism etc, seeks to exist alongside capitalism. This isn't an answer to Capitalism! The only acceptable alternative can be the complete abolition of Capitalism.)
The aim of this blog is to not offer a a unified response from the Far Left with out any faults, indeed this would be impossible. The aim is to provide a foundation which can be built upon in order to establish an effective response and replacement to Capitalism. As a Marxist this seems like a good place to start.
Anarchist Communism is the theory that argues for the abolition of the state, private property and Capitalism. It is in favour of; common ownership of the means of production, a horizontal network of voluntary associations and 'workers councils'. It also argues for direct democracy.
It therefore envisions a society that is; democratic, has no state, common ownership of the means of production, and that there is no hierarchy as everyone is equal and at the same level of society. It is a stateless, classes, and equal society, with decisions made directly by the people who either operate independently or belong to voluntary associations such as small communities.
The way it is envisaged for this society to come about is via violent revolution. It has been argued that this would be achieved by people organising themselves into their own revolutionary movements that is equally controlled by everyone in them. These groups would eventually unify internationally (into a united international working class) and bring about the long needed revolution.
Society and everyone one in it will thus become free and see the end of Capitalism.
There are however some problems with this theory. The first is that without a state there can be no law and no law enforcement. That is why there would still be some sort of authority in place. An Open Sourced Network would be at the heart of this society. This Network would be controlled only by the people using a direct democratic system. This system would only have power over those who wished to be apart of it. Anyone who was part of it would also be able to leave it at anytime. This system would therefore act as a safe barrier from criminals such as rapists and murderers. It would also stop one community violently invading another to try and form a new state or expand its power by exploiting others. This system would also ensure that capitalism could not return.
The second problem would be the situation where there was a lack of work done by the people. That is why this society would be better suited in a more advanced era were automation was common and self sustaining. This would mean that jobs such as frequent maintenance to public works were constantly being done by machines.
The network would also aid in gathering hands for projects such as the maintenance of infrastructure such as the building of new transport systems. For example a commune who wished to develop a transport system would request help on the OSN. It can be assumed that engineers, planners etc and labour forces would aid in doing this as they to would require benefit from a transport system. They would also benefit helping others as others would then be more likely to aid them. For example if an engineer required food, or housing, the commune he/she was helping could provide this. In organising this it would most likely be the Trade Unions and/or Workers Councils as in this society, organised labour would be at the heart of everything. This sort of arrangement would also be much easier in an advanced automated, self sustaining society.
Communities would also likely have their own local laws which if anyone did not agree with they could leave the community. The open source network would in theory be the closest thing to a world government with which participation was voluntary. The open sourced network would also likely only allow laws to be made that were aimed at preventing people from harming each other. The OSN would also play a role in monitoring and regulating welfare services such as health care and energy demand. Again however in a more automated society this to would have little problems as machines would have access to all of humanities information via the Internet and could be programmed to function in a way that responded to the needs of the people.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of Anarchist Communism is its ability to get rid of Capitalism. By this it is meant that Communists (be they Marxist or other) should ally with the Anarchists across the world in order to work together in bringing about revolution. After all the both Communists and Anarchists have similar ends which allows them to achieve their goals with out opposing each others ideologies. It therefore seems that the choice is either wait for society to become more technologically advanced and be highly automated and abolish the state quickly through a quick spontaneous revolution or for the entire working class of the world to unite and implement an organised revolution and enter into the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In doing this the ruling working class can place focus on creating this; technologically advanced, automated society more quickly and then abolish the state, thus entering into Communism and also allowing Anarchist to implement their form of society within their own independent communes.
The other possibility would be for the Anarchists and the Communists to have mutually agreed to not interfere with each other and agree to revolt using revolutionary methods at the same time and once Capitalism is overthrown negotiate on achieving the end by compromising on the means of achieving this end. It does therefore seem that the only way revolution could be successful would be a joint attack from Anarchist Insurrectionary forces (using methods proposed in the coming insurrection) and mobilising Communist labour organisations (such as Trade Unions and Workers Councils) (as stated in the Communist Manifesto) and also using Leninist Revolutionary Vanguard Political Parties to seize power. After all there is strength in numbers.
I am aware that some groups of Anarchists and Communist would find it difficult to work together as certain aspects of the two ideologies oppose each other. This is why a compromise would need to be met as unless the Far Left unite then Capitalism will forever remain. This is due to the fact that at present, there appears to be no agreeable alternative to Capitalism.
In the words of Otto Von Bismarck 'Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!'
Note: It must be noted that while most of these theories tend to be Communist answers, Anarchist still have a place within this society. This is due to the fact that everyone is free to live apart from the system, which means Anarchist could live within their own communes and be left alone by the Communists and live in a way that is acceptable to their ideology.
Again, it must be stressed that for those that disagreed with the Communist way of living (such as the examples given earlier) would also be free to live in a way they see fit. However the biggest problem would be when two communes came into conflict with each other. I.e. claim over land or resources. The problem would be the same problem we have now with the Nation States that exist now, there would be war. To avoid this, the OSN would be used to mobilise a peacekeeping force. This 'armed force' could be used to prevent conflicts between communes or prevent a commune from turning into a nation state. This sounds impractical, however it does work as this method was successfully used by the Spanish Republic and its supporting factions during the Spanish Civil War. All communes would be free from all laws set down by the OSN (with the exception of people not being able to harm one another or claim authority over one another). Again to many this would sound impractical, but it was done with a degree of success by the Spanish. It only failed because other Nation States existed and the Spanish Republic received little help from the outside world in dealing with the Fascists (who had help from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy). It therefore leads me to conclude that in order for Communism and Anarchism to work, the effect would have to be global and be monitored by a minimal 'Nightwatchmen State' (the OSN) in order to be protected.
Tuesday 6 April 2010
An immature experience of Zen.
I don't want this to come off as religious. i use the word zen because i was reading koans before i thought of writing this.
The Idea is to disregard everything. Just for a moment, but seriously and honestly. A thought might not just cut it. It requires us to completely let go of the floor we are sitting on.
I mean, honestly, you're sitting on it, but what does that mean? to what point does it satisfy to consider it.
at what point does it satisfy to consider anything. Really, why is it so necessary?
We can either reject reality. or accept it. It really makes no odds.
If we do, then what, the world is in your head.
If we don't and this means accepting investigations into reality such as physics or biology, then a world is out that we are in.
It really does not matter. Nor does my correctness to that situation.
We all talk about the things "here", about all the "stuff" - Eastenders, Easter, cornflakes and politics.
But it's really all of the "things". There is nothing, essentially, we made these ideas and these arguments. We constructed the dress code and the etiquette, we built the "nation" and the connotations of colour.
We act around each other, along with our beliefs in these odd "things". This is what we do, and we do it all the time.
Through time, whole peoples have not forgotten them. It's managed to spawn religions, beliefs, tribalism, South Park and Dorritos.
Forget it. There's just you and me.
We are pretty much all there is.
We've got to put behind us the ways that we think just to recognise this.
If we did recognise each other -and just that brute fact- we would be able to accomplish so much more.
The Idea is to disregard everything. Just for a moment, but seriously and honestly. A thought might not just cut it. It requires us to completely let go of the floor we are sitting on.
I mean, honestly, you're sitting on it, but what does that mean? to what point does it satisfy to consider it.
at what point does it satisfy to consider anything. Really, why is it so necessary?
We can either reject reality. or accept it. It really makes no odds.
If we do, then what, the world is in your head.
If we don't and this means accepting investigations into reality such as physics or biology, then a world is out that we are in.
It really does not matter. Nor does my correctness to that situation.
We all talk about the things "here", about all the "stuff" - Eastenders, Easter, cornflakes and politics.
But it's really all of the "things". There is nothing, essentially, we made these ideas and these arguments. We constructed the dress code and the etiquette, we built the "nation" and the connotations of colour.
We act around each other, along with our beliefs in these odd "things". This is what we do, and we do it all the time.
Through time, whole peoples have not forgotten them. It's managed to spawn religions, beliefs, tribalism, South Park and Dorritos.
Forget it. There's just you and me.
We are pretty much all there is.
We've got to put behind us the ways that we think just to recognise this.
If we did recognise each other -and just that brute fact- we would be able to accomplish so much more.
Saturday 3 April 2010
Think before you see, before you feel - think before you think.
We're all doing it. We've done it for millennia.
We speak it, we act it, we live by it, in it, through it.
We can't help thinking like we do.
We build and construct, ideas, notions and feelings.
We see the world by them, and never without.
It's trapping us in a tiny box. It obscures what we can think about things.
Why do we need some starting point for thought, some framework of discourse?
Why does it take a set of preconceived ideas just to put the kettle on?
More importantly, why does it need those preconceived ideas just to say we should love each other?
Don't you want to shout. To scream. Say "STOP". And have it stop. To have it cease.
To see the world as it is, not as it should be, as it could be, as it will be, as it has been.
To see the world for what it is. To see it how it is.
Crystallize the world as though through a prism and we can all angles.
But it won't. It will not stop.
Everything here happens so fast. If you don't stop, it's not that you'll miss it, you will miss what we are all missing.
We speak it, we act it, we live by it, in it, through it.
We can't help thinking like we do.
We build and construct, ideas, notions and feelings.
We see the world by them, and never without.
It's trapping us in a tiny box. It obscures what we can think about things.
Why do we need some starting point for thought, some framework of discourse?
Why does it take a set of preconceived ideas just to put the kettle on?
More importantly, why does it need those preconceived ideas just to say we should love each other?
Don't you want to shout. To scream. Say "STOP". And have it stop. To have it cease.
To see the world as it is, not as it should be, as it could be, as it will be, as it has been.
To see the world for what it is. To see it how it is.
Crystallize the world as though through a prism and we can all angles.
But it won't. It will not stop.
Everything here happens so fast. If you don't stop, it's not that you'll miss it, you will miss what we are all missing.
Monday 29 March 2010
The Rhetoric of democracy
i wrote this for politics magazine, but they rejected/ignored my request to write for them.
The Rhetoric of democracy
It seems quite right that after the last few, and I say few, I mean long, years of political stagnation that our major broadcasters propose live debates as seen in the US presidential run-up. The conservatives and the liberal democrats seem all up for the fight, but Gordon is holding back, causing some strife for labour and political ammunition for the opposition. The debates are a move that would allows us to see up close the views of each leader.
The face off we see at prime ministers question times is an old joke, Gordon and Cameron a swords length apart; supported by their party with bouts of laughter, pointing fingers and waving papers, all red-faced, suit-clad politicians. It is defence and parry, block and retaliate. But the whole act seems without prestige, without the greatness and popularity of presidential debates.
The opportunity here is obvious; with decline of voter turnout political parties finally have the opportunity to revamp their electorate, to ignite another flame like the near 85% turnout of the 50’s. Questions that have been avoided find a new place under the burning spotlight and piercing camera. People can ask: Will you implement electoral reform? How are you tackling the economy? And what is your position on foreign affairs, Iran and so forth.
Mr Brown’s shunning of televised debates is likely a political move seeing he is at a low in some opinion polls. Gordon thinks this means he is somehow impaired [insert reference to one eye here]. The voice in his head must be telling him the nation would be laughing at him. As of Cameron and Nick Clegg, David is on a high and wants use this advantage to snatch the polls up. It’s a win-win for him, if Brown goes in David will demolish him (as he does at question time) if he doesn’t then he’ll chide him (as usual). Clegg is likely seeing an opening where he can voice himself and show he is a valid party leader worth voting for.
The debates would manifest a new dimension to British politics, the air of accountability, scrutiny and democracy. But at what cost? I’d say rhetoric and superficiality. The winner of the debates will be the best speaker not the best politician, the person who can be ambiguous but seem precise, the person who can make a fool of the other, the best presented and most well spoken. Obviously this strikes Gordon right off the list and places Cameron on a pedestal; he is a very powerful debater against the government at question time. Not to mention the amount of ammo that an incoming leader would have: thirteen years of New Labour initiatives to ridicule. The next general election win seems more like a default than a choice.
The Rhetoric of democracy
It seems quite right that after the last few, and I say few, I mean long, years of political stagnation that our major broadcasters propose live debates as seen in the US presidential run-up. The conservatives and the liberal democrats seem all up for the fight, but Gordon is holding back, causing some strife for labour and political ammunition for the opposition. The debates are a move that would allows us to see up close the views of each leader.
The face off we see at prime ministers question times is an old joke, Gordon and Cameron a swords length apart; supported by their party with bouts of laughter, pointing fingers and waving papers, all red-faced, suit-clad politicians. It is defence and parry, block and retaliate. But the whole act seems without prestige, without the greatness and popularity of presidential debates.
The opportunity here is obvious; with decline of voter turnout political parties finally have the opportunity to revamp their electorate, to ignite another flame like the near 85% turnout of the 50’s. Questions that have been avoided find a new place under the burning spotlight and piercing camera. People can ask: Will you implement electoral reform? How are you tackling the economy? And what is your position on foreign affairs, Iran and so forth.
Mr Brown’s shunning of televised debates is likely a political move seeing he is at a low in some opinion polls. Gordon thinks this means he is somehow impaired [insert reference to one eye here]. The voice in his head must be telling him the nation would be laughing at him. As of Cameron and Nick Clegg, David is on a high and wants use this advantage to snatch the polls up. It’s a win-win for him, if Brown goes in David will demolish him (as he does at question time) if he doesn’t then he’ll chide him (as usual). Clegg is likely seeing an opening where he can voice himself and show he is a valid party leader worth voting for.
The debates would manifest a new dimension to British politics, the air of accountability, scrutiny and democracy. But at what cost? I’d say rhetoric and superficiality. The winner of the debates will be the best speaker not the best politician, the person who can be ambiguous but seem precise, the person who can make a fool of the other, the best presented and most well spoken. Obviously this strikes Gordon right off the list and places Cameron on a pedestal; he is a very powerful debater against the government at question time. Not to mention the amount of ammo that an incoming leader would have: thirteen years of New Labour initiatives to ridicule. The next general election win seems more like a default than a choice.
is this a truthful doctrine?
All social phenomena are a product of:
(1) (Physically & mentally, essentially their being)*
(2) This refers to anything external to A. It is their surroundings, other people etc. This will necessarily constitute other social phenomena.*
*This is supposed to be a dynamic interaction that cannot be quantitatively realized. The description is intended to refer an objective state of affairs and the central purpose is to show how social phenomena, broadly, are produced.
Considering this, a priori, social phenomena are guaranteed to exist. In addition to this, knowing its constituent parts A & B and noting (or emphasising) the individuality of A in B,
It will be sustained, generated and essentially mediated by:
And by including “environment” we must therefore include in X
Therefore if social phenomena are guaranteed to exist as a product of A and B and be dependant on a dynamic relationship with X (a person’s perception in the environment) then social phenomena should be restricted to A and B with regard to X. The “regard” to X ensures we note that X generates social phenomena based on perception which is naturally arbitrary (but somehow seems consistent) because of the single, individual A within the shared B.
A= A persons existence (1)
B= Their environment (2)
(1) (Physically & mentally, essentially their being)*
(2) This refers to anything external to A. It is their surroundings, other people etc. This will necessarily constitute other social phenomena.*
*This is supposed to be a dynamic interaction that cannot be quantitatively realized. The description is intended to refer an objective state of affairs and the central purpose is to show how social phenomena, broadly, are produced.
Considering this, a priori, social phenomena are guaranteed to exist. In addition to this, knowing its constituent parts A & B and noting (or emphasising) the individuality of A in B,
It will be sustained, generated and essentially mediated by:
X .a person’s perception of their existence within the environment
And by including “environment” we must therefore include in X
X. Social phenomena
Therefore if social phenomena are guaranteed to exist as a product of A and B and be dependant on a dynamic relationship with X (a person’s perception in the environment) then social phenomena should be restricted to A and B with regard to X. The “regard” to X ensures we note that X generates social phenomena based on perception which is naturally arbitrary (but somehow seems consistent) because of the single, individual A within the shared B.
This is my doctrine of existence.
The problem is that social phenomena (X) do not refer to themselves as subjective accounts. This difficulty is language, our perception (X) of reality doesn’t suggest subjectivity and thus our language doesn’t make that discrepancy. Language thus has no self referential gauge that points to words or ideas and indicates their validity to reality.
The outcome of this state of affairs, as our social evolution has progressed, is that our social phenomenon, our structures of organisation, morality and language do not take into account their foundations (A, B, X) and therefore their ultimately, restricted relationship with regards to actual reality.
The only truth it seems is our descriptions of A and X and B.
Saturday 27 March 2010
Foucault's bio power
Foucault writes of the “soul” as a reality which transcends the impermanent body. The body is subject to devises of power which target the soul as static state of being in one body to the next. This is bio power.
“it is produced permanently around, on, within the body by the functioning of a power that is exercised on those punished…on those one supervises, trains and corrects,” and goes onto say “…the historical reality of this soul, which unlike the soul represented in Christian theology, is not born into sin and subject to punishment, but is born rather out of methods of punishment, supervision and constraint…it is the element in… effects of a certain type of power and the reference of a certain type of knowledge, the machinery by which the power relations give rise to a possible corpus of knowledge… on this reality reference, various concepts have been constructed and domains of analysis carved out: psyche, subjectivity, personality consciousness etc.”
The soul is focused on bodies, producing a self
“But let there be no misunderstanding: it is not that a real man, the object of knowledge… has been substituted for the soul…a ‘soul’ inhabits him and brings him into existence”
Artefacts of bio power exist in the conditioning of the “self”, the “soul”, in social relations because of the machinery of power focusing on the soul. We as these permanent “selves” and permanent “identities” are solidified in time. Our whole social structures are base on constructed contracts of being and how we should be.
In example:
The contract of “friendship” assumes certain parameters of action which delineate the scope of action. “One”, that permanent “self”, must respect them, be a subject to them. He should not lie, under the assumption of the construction of honesty, which was agreed in this vice of “friendship”. We reproduce the same social relation again and again.
The teacher as a “teacher” assumes the “pupil” wants to learn while the pupil as a “pupil” is assumed to want to learn. The relationship is finite focusing on the self as a static identity. The whole education system lines up bodies and treats them the same, as though we had a soul.
We will continue to do this by our expansion of knowledge, of power. I feel as though this relates to my truth doctrine. It is not as though we have some real gauge of morality or of right, nor does our language even grasp reality. Any attempt at such a project leads to more canons of bio power constraining us, the doctrine shows that much.
Quotes taken from: Foucault Discipline and punish - the birth of prisons PG: 29-30
Monday 15 March 2010
Is God worthy of worship?
This is an interesting question.
If someone believes god exists, surely they would conclude that god is not worthy of worship.
The gap between the way the world could be as opposed to how it is, is vast. Assuming that world is better than this world.
I'd conclude no.
If someone believes god exists, surely they would conclude that god is not worthy of worship.
The gap between the way the world could be as opposed to how it is, is vast. Assuming that world is better than this world.
I'd conclude no.
Friday 12 February 2010
A thought on ethical language
I'd say ethical language is a complete accident.
We are able to use the words "right" and "wrong" in the sense of physical phenomena, whether relating to one another e.g. it is right that leaves come from trees/bushes etc. Or with objective observations- that when when you drop something gravity causes it to fall.
But the mistake is when we apply those words to concepts other than physical phenomena or objective observation.
Language has rules, but this distinction is not one of them.
Ethical language, therefore, will undoubtedly be a struggle of ideology.
This considered.
Culture, whether ours or others, is terribly blinding.
We are able to use the words "right" and "wrong" in the sense of physical phenomena, whether relating to one another e.g. it is right that leaves come from trees/bushes etc. Or with objective observations- that when when you drop something gravity causes it to fall.
But the mistake is when we apply those words to concepts other than physical phenomena or objective observation.
Language has rules, but this distinction is not one of them.
Ethical language, therefore, will undoubtedly be a struggle of ideology.
This considered.
Culture, whether ours or others, is terribly blinding.
Sunday 17 January 2010
A FB convo on islam
I think the UK gov't was wrong in not letting the danish MP show his documentary on Islam. The text is startling.The koran is the text to which it refers.
Her:
6 hours ago ·
Me:
Her:
yea i didnt read a word of that.
islam is a fucked up religion, they burn the women, the bomb every other fucker that dont agree with them, I hate them all and they get the fuck out of this country...
Me:
Her:
fuck islam! bunch o boming twats
Me:
Not all muslims want to bomb people. don't be so narrow minded.
I'm going to show you here the issues.
Ireland for instance.
... See More
There are many groups who are considered terrorist all over the world. liberation army.. revoloutionary struggle.
mostly these are against capitalism, topdown organiszation, globalization (esp. corporate/economic)
Islam as a religion makes up just about a quarter of the worlds population & thier belief systems are very different.
Religion is the main issue, but it is very rooted in the culture, far more so than ours.
Plus mohammed as a prphet (unlike jesus) didn't teach us to be critical of law.
islam's laws thefore are considered tantamount to many muslims.
The other main issue comes from culture as well, look at what middle eastern countries have had to deal with over the last 100 years of foriegners declaring war and killing muslims... gulf, lebansese civil war invasion of iraq... and this is over the last 30 years... with constant western intervention.
aside from the military problems...there are economic issues
there have been repeated accusations of corporations taking advantage of lax social protection & exploiting the middle easts resources... which is thier main souce of natural wealth and what would allow them to become a power near ours (pending on how well they use it)
on top of that western banks have been imposing their will in forcing middle eastern countries to reform thier economies (FORCING)
E.G. on this sustainable economics website they point out:
"The World Banks and IMF’s interrelationship, financial opportunism, corporate mandate and US backing is best exemplified by their economic occupation of Iraq. Since the occupation began, Iraq’s entire economy has been fashioned by the IMF and World Bank to suit (mainly US) foreign investors and corporate interests."
source: http://www.stwr.org/imf-world-bank-trade/decommissioning-the-imf-world-bank-and-wto.html
Wake up and smell the hegemony.
We are manipulated and controlled by a predatory and ultimately destructive economy and a democracy with little real participation. (an oxymoron that is)
What is going on with terrorism is not so much justified... but understandable.
it represents a cry out for recognition that self determination is important.
I'm going to show you here the issues.
Ireland for instance.
... See More
There are many groups who are considered terrorist all over the world. liberation army.. revoloutionary struggle.
mostly these are against capitalism, topdown organiszation, globalization (esp. corporate/economic)
Islam as a religion makes up just about a quarter of the worlds population & thier belief systems are very different.
Religion is the main issue, but it is very rooted in the culture, far more so than ours.
Plus mohammed as a prphet (unlike jesus) didn't teach us to be critical of law.
islam's laws thefore are considered tantamount to many muslims.
The other main issue comes from culture as well, look at what middle eastern countries have had to deal with over the last 100 years of foriegners declaring war and killing muslims... gulf, lebansese civil war invasion of iraq... and this is over the last 30 years... with constant western intervention.
aside from the military problems...there are economic issues
there have been repeated accusations of corporations taking advantage of lax social protection & exploiting the middle easts resources... which is thier main souce of natural wealth and what would allow them to become a power near ours (pending on how well they use it)
on top of that western banks have been imposing their will in forcing middle eastern countries to reform thier economies (FORCING)
E.G. on this sustainable economics website they point out:
"The World Banks and IMF’s interrelationship, financial opportunism, corporate mandate and US backing is best exemplified by their economic occupation of Iraq. Since the occupation began, Iraq’s entire economy has been fashioned by the IMF and World Bank to suit (mainly US) foreign investors and corporate interests."
source: http://www.stwr.org/imf-wo
Wake up and smell the hegemony.
We are manipulated and controlled by a predatory and ultimately destructive economy and a democracy with little real participation. (an oxymoron that is)
What is going on with terrorism is not so much justified... but understandable.
it represents a cry out for recognition that self determination is important.
Her:
yea i didnt read a word of that.
islam is a fucked up religion, they burn the women, the bomb every other fucker that dont agree with them, I hate them all and they get the fuck out of this country...
Me:
It sounds to me you'd rather be ignorant to save you narrow world-view.
>99% and above are not terrorists. Or misogynists to any reprehensible degree.
her:
I think the issue of islam is much more complex than "a paki and a big looking bag" or "islam is a fucked up religion"
never mind.
I think the whole issue over in the middle east will really kick off soon.. maybe years though.
>99% and above are not terrorists. Or misogynists to any reprehensible degree.
her:
yes i would rather be narrow minded than be on a plane with a paki and a big looking bag.
I think the issue of islam is much more complex than "a paki and a big looking bag" or "islam is a fucked up religion"
never mind.
I think the whole issue over in the middle east will really kick off soon.. maybe years though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)