[colinbaker62]

'The West'. A familiar concept, not least for the many living within its fluid geography. An imagined community of global proportions, whose collective conceptual framework it is probably fair to suggest, is heavily imbued with the values and beliefs of free-market capitalism. Money / market criteria are uppermost in just about everyone's mind. Ideas of, and / or concerns with such factors as profit, cost, returns on invested capital, competition, interest, wage and salary levels and so on, are pervasive. And this instinctive and necessary kind of thinking ( given the current socio-economic situation ) can be witnessed, even at the most unfortunate of social levels.

Strolling along the streets of my own capital city here in Cardiff, Wales, a few weeks ago, I chanced upon a young homeless man, seated, hunched upon the kerbside, rocking gently back and forth. "Any spare change mate?" came the question as I approached this huddled frame. "I may have a little" I replied. My left hand plunged into my coat pocket and soon re-emerged with a modest cluster of coinage. "Here you are" I beckoned to him. "Thank you mate" he replied, extending his youthful arm to receive what little money I had offered. I sat down alongside him for a few minutes, no doubt my curiosity getting the better of me. "Have you been living on the streets long?" I asked, anticipating short shrift. "About six months now" he replied. "Lost my job, then my home, and finally my marriage because we couldn't pay the mortgage. You know. The usual kind of story I suppose". "Can't the powers that be re-house you?" I asked. "Apparently, there's a two year waiting list for rented accommodation" he replied. "Sometimes I'm lucky enough to get a place at the local homeless hostel, but not every night". We chatted a few minutes longer before I wished him well, and continued on my way.

As I walked on however, I thought some more of this homeless man's plight. Here we are, in Britain, one of the richest industrial nations on earth by just about any standard one cares to apply, and yet as a people, we are seemingly prevented from meeting the needs of this homeless man. In my view, this is not least because the maximum utilization and deployment of our rich resources is inhibited due to the resources in question being largely subordinate to the endless quest for profit. Capitalism, based as it is on the private ownership of the productive forces and means of production (eg. factories, offices, raw materials, scientific knowledge, instruments of production....etc) creates immense inequality and deprivation when the potential exists for providing the material components of a human(e) life for everyone.

If we were minded to as a species, surely we could meet this homeless man's needs almost instantly along with many others in a similar plight. Yet under current socio-economic conditions here in Britain, like elsewhere in the industrialised world, it generally doesn't pay ( quite literally ) for us to behave in this kind of way towards our fellow human beings, therefore we don't. Instead, and in relation to meeting the human(e) need for housing, we are largely compelled to build houses for profit. Houses that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds that only the wealthiest in society can afford to buy ( rarely those therefore, who build the houses themselves ). Either this, or else we provide limited social housing from an ever-dwindling housing stock, and with ever-increasing rents, kept in line with rent levels akin to those in the private sector.

Yet evidence exists to suggest that the principle of 'investment purely for profitable return' does not, and indeed could not, socially function throughout society in an absolute sense. Unbelievable perhaps, but true! Even if we consider one of the most advanced industrial nations on earth, such a violation of capitalist principles can be noted. My own national government here in Britain for example, has recently committed around £20 billion of tax-payers' money over the long term, intended to replace our present Trident nuclear submarine fleet (Daily Mail, 2007). Of course, from the perspective of profit, the future private firms involved in the construction process and so forth will undoubtedly do very well from this planned government spending. The point here however, is to realize that in the medium to long term, such a massive investment of public wealth stands to deliver no noticeable financial return whatsoever to the state. In short, such planned spending of public money stands in clear violation of capitalistic principles of investment for profitable return and yet such activity is deemed feasible. I am not suggesting for one minute by the way that the British state is deliberately setting out to undermine capitalism per se, and capitalist principles of economics in particular. To do so would be foolish. The point is however, whether consciously or otherwise initiated, is that it can be done.

And this is no mere isolated case. Violations of the capitalist principle of investment solely for profit are all about us.Take my own region of Wales as another example of this. The regional Welsh Assembly Government (a public body) announced recently that its annual "[d]irect investment...[in public education provision]...has increased from £760m in 1999-2000 to over £1,500m for 2006-07" ( Welsh Assembly on line, 2007 ) In other words, public money has been, and continues to be invested, this time in educational provision and in no small part, for education's sake. This investment too therefore, stands to contradict the capitalist doctrine of investment purely for profitable return. Granted, private finance plays a current role in certain aspects of education provision throughout Britain as a whole. But even this fact does nothing to devalue the general argument that capitalist economic principles are indeed being violated.

Let us see next, if the doctrine of investment purely for profitable return is being strictly adhered to at an international level. I would strongly suggest that it is not. The European Space Agency (ESA) for instance, handles an annual budget of around U.S. $3.8 billion. Its Director General has recently outlined the Agency's mission for the early part of the twenty-first century. Jean-Jacques Dordain said that "[t]oday, space activities are pursued for the benefit of citizens, and citizens are asking for a better quality of life on earth. They... want to pursue their dreams, to increase their knowledge, and they want younger people to be attracted to the pursuit of science and technology" ( Wikipedia on line, 2007. Emphasis added ). Here also then, ESA's activities stand to transcend purely economic considerations of profitable return on investment.

Coming back down to earth with a bump, and returning to the specific question of meeting housing needs of people simply because it is a human(e) thing to do, let's briefly cast an eye towards Mexico. For it was there, in 2001 that the non-profit body 'Casita Linda' was officially founded. At time of writing, Casita Linda is run by volunteers and funded wholly by donation. Its purpose is to build affordable houses for the most impoverished of human beings in parts of Mexico. No mean task given that a 2000 census suggested that at least 17 million Mexicans were living in extreme poverty. And this, in a world of potential plenty ! Nonetheless, and against all odds, Casita Linda built six new homes in 2006, and for no reason, other than to meet human needs. They are struggling for a target of eleven this year (Casita Linda A.C, on line, 2007). The numbers seem insignificant, especially when placed in their broader context. Yet the principle underpinning such activity, namely the meeting of human need simply because those in need are human, is of critical importance. It is this principle that we should not let pass unnoticed.

Perhaps one day then, housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, employing the myriad unemployed and other such social priorities will all come to be realized not only as being more important than the purchasing of nuclear warheads, but also, equally as deserving as education provision and space research. Perhaps some time in the future, a majority of the world's population will come to embrace the kinds of human(e) principles that serve to guide and motivate Casita Linda today.


Colin Baker March, 2007.

REFERENCES:

Casita Linda A.C For a More Dignified Life [ Accessed on line, March 2007 ] Available at: http://www.casitalinda.org/index.html


Daily Mail , March 13th, 2007. P. 10


National Assembly for Wales SCHOOL FUNDING: PAPER FOR ELL COMMITTEE TO NOTE, 16 MARCH 2006 [ Accessed on line, March 2007 ] Available at: http://www.cymru.gov.uk/keypubassems...606paper2l.htm


Wikipedia European Space Agency [ Accessed on line, March 2007 ] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency

[Hagetaka]

Not but last night, I read a very dated essay written by Aldous Huxley (for those less in the know, you might recognise him to the be novelist who wrote 'Brave New World.") As I said, the essay is quite dated; ranging likely to the late 70's --considering also that I picked up the literature from a local thrift shop, and that the text wafts of the passage of time.

The text of A Brave New World dealt very much with a socialistic appeal; feed all the hungry, heal the sick, fairness for all, etc (granted, the novel is much more fiction oriented, and does not exclusively pertain to these ideals). And with no suprise, the essay deals with these problems directly. Except that Huxley suggests a crisis. That being, that -- especially in the UK -- there is not a sufficient person to acreage ratio to maintain proper nourishment in a ideal socialistic climate. That, if they do not already, countries will have to rely on capitalistic means to gather adequate amounts of food to accomplish any sort of Utopia. Would that not render the idea of socialism flawed from the firing of the starting gun?

Once again, the text is dated, and indefinately an opinion piece -- even if by a well known persona. Still, I cannot imagine that soil quality has gotten tremendously better, or that the net population has gotten significantly lower (another topic he tackles).

You do, however, provide a valuable point; what do we do with all of the homeless? Many people consider them a stigma -- a leech of society. Certainly, many here in America have ruined the good nature of men and women by creating a rude generalization. That being, that all homeless are drug-addicted, booze-vaults. Homelessness is an enormous problem. And you are correct in stating that perhaps the government should focus less on nuclear submarines, and more on the common good of its people. But with Capitalism sparking so much war, how could they resist! (I jest.. ! haha).

[Laughing Man]

Our politcal systems are based on natural selfishness, the theory that people will do what ever they can to manage their lives in a better way. The homeless you mention are there for a reason, it is understandable to form the conjecture that society is responsible for the situation that they are in. However it is just as easily said that at present that people are exceeding the mean ratio of houseing...that every one is above below or in teh center of that conceptual framework that is the collective housing. It can be said that we naturally progress above and below the mean, but modern psychology suggest that eventually without changing or modernizing the problem, society will "even out".

[Hagetaka]

I certainly hope that you are not suggesting that the homeless are homeless strictly due to poor choices, rather than poor circumstance.

[Laughing Man]

You could argue either way...but standing from a factual posture it is certainly possible.

[colinbaker62]

Hello TI Coye and Hage. Thanks to you both for reading. (By the way, I have just tagged on a paragraph which is wholly relevant to the essay's overall argument, and which relates to activity in Mexico).

In answer to your most recent question Hage, I am not suggesting that the homeless are responsible for their own plight. Of course, there will be cases where people actively choose, and for a variety of reasons, to make themselves homeless. But by and large, I believe that homelessness is a consequence of a world that is geared to meet the realization of profit as opposed to that of human need.

Neither do I think that the housing shortage is largely a consequence of population trends. Thomas Malthus argued this a few centuries back, but such arguments overlook one important factor. Namely that humans can, if they realize the need, take control of their lives in a conscious sense. So for example, we have invented childbirth controls. Similarly then, we are more than capable as a species of building homes to meet current environmental to meet the immediate needs of the homeless and so on. What prevents us from doing so at present, I believe, are the dominant (though not absolute) economic laws of capitalist production, distribution and exchange. Virtually everything we do is, and must necessarily be for profit. Yet profit has not been an endearing feature of human existence. It has arisen at a specific time in human history but equally, it can be surpassed if enough of us arrive at a conscious realization of the need to do so.

As to Huxley's work Hage, I must confess that I have read little as to primary sources, but more in respect of other authors who represent some of Huxley's ideas. Whether such representation is a fair representation is of course, another matter entirely.


Colin

[Venus]

This is a sad, but incredibly real problem all around the world. What gets me is in countries like Britain, or the Unites States, where we are supposed to be ran on a "democratic" principle, a country for the people, by the people, kind of thing, it seems people aren't really involved in choosing how we spend our money. I challenge you to go into any given city and find 5,000 people, a number that is far from majority in most cities, that would choose to purchase yet another nuclear weapon over building a homeless shelter. I don't think it can be done, which brings me back to my point that it's not the nation choosing how it's money is spent, but the rich representative that have stock or ownership in the companies that we buy from..Some philosophers live by the fact that "the people are ignorant" and that if we were allowed to really vote or decide on how the country was ran, it would fall. I believe, however, that we are not given enough credit, and that we should be given more power in the government. Looking back to ancient greece and the way they ran their democracy, seemed to work pretty well. I feel if it became the people's right to have a larger say in how they country's money is spent we would find our country well taken care of. I believe our funding of other nations would suffer in the beginning, though not end, but that when we had gotten ourselves together, we would be able to help others in a way like never before.

[Hagetaka]

Venus,

While I do not wholeheartedly disagree with your approach, there are a few things that you should consider. It is very easy to look back in history and tell yourself how grand it all was. All of the grime, pestilence, bumbling idiots (which plague modern times as much as ancient times) are easily forgotten. Looking back into history, it is much easier to become enamored by the heroes and be swept by an illusion of granduer -- look at the common perception of the middle ages; kings, riches, dragons, all reign supreme. Even though it was really a time where literacy suffered, and people died by means we would consider outrageous now (illness or otherwise). My point is this: Unless it is a great folley, time will forget it.

Which makes you wonder. How will history look back on us? How will school children of 3500 AD look at us now? Misguided? Confused? Hopeful? Haha, perhaps a thousand years from now Bush will be but a scribble on the page.

And yes, homelessness is a real problem. But we are certainly doing more about it now than any other time in the past. It is a problem that will follow mankind to its grave; it is the nature of free will.

[colinbaker62]

Originally Posted by Venuswithapen

This is a sad, but incredibly real problem all around the world. What gets me is in countries like Britain, or the Unites States, where we are supposed to be ran on a "democratic" principle, a country for the people, by the people, kind of thing, it seems people aren't really involved in choosing how we spend our money. I challenge you to go into any given city and find 5,000 people, a number that is far from majority in most cities, that would choose to purchase yet another nuclear weapon over building a homeless shelter. I don't think it can be done, which brings me back to my point that it's not the nation choosing how it's money is spent, but the rich representative that have stock or ownership in the companies that we buy from..Some philosophers live by the fact that "the people are ignorant" and that if we were allowed to really vote or decide on how the country was ran, it would fall. I believe, however, that we are not given enough credit, and that we should be given more power in the government. Looking back to ancient greece and the way they ran their democracy, seemed to work pretty well. I feel if it became the people's right to have a larger say in how they country's money is spent we would find our country well taken care of. I believe our funding of other nations would suffer in the beginning, though not end, but that when we had gotten ourselves together, we would be able to help others in a way like never before.

Hello Venuswithapen.

I think you make some very intelligent suggestions here. Before I pick up on them directly however, if I may, I would first like to offer but a few qualifications to your comments. When you talk of 'democracy', it is critical in my view to realise that democracy is a form of government, and as such, exists because antagonistic interests exist in wider society. So-called democratic governments do not exist to meet the needs of people per se. Instead, they exist first and foremost (and necessarily so) to mitigate the worst effects of competing antagonistic class interests in a given society. If we insist on using the term democracy,(and I'm not criticising you personally here. I mean people in general) it is at best, I believe, a class democracy of which we speak. For we must always ask; 'Democracy for whom?'

I also think your reference to ancient Greece necessitates a cautious label. You are certainly correct, I believe, in suggesting that ancient Greece and the society thereof can teach us much as a species, and in relation to many aspects of human existence. But we must be guarded against either transposing a past state of affairs upon current happenings, or else vice versa. What I'm trying to say, is that we must understand the problems with which the ancient Greeks were wrestling wholly in the context of ancient Greece. Similarly, we must strive to understand contemporary problems by setting them firmly in the context of the here and now.

That said, you do place very searching ideas in the public domain. For example your suggestion about people having the ultimate say in their own affairs is an excellent point. After all, it is the people on the ground one would think, that know their real needs. During war time, the state conducting such a war doesn't simply guess what is needed, or else design some abstract scheme and then apply it to the issue to hand, thus hoping for the best. Instead, they consult with the commanding officers on the ground, with those in the heat of battle. If we truly began to do this on a major scale, this of course would signal the beginning of the end for capitalist relations of production, premised as they are on meeting the needs of the minority as opposed to the majority. As you rightly point out, it is indeed the rich representatives above all others, that embody the power of decision-making.


When you suggest that people in general are not given enough credit for their general role in society's affairs, this again is a fundamental point I believe. Perhaps I am departing somewhat from your own intended meaning here, but I interpret this as saying people are the real force in society as a whole. I couldn't agree more with this kind of idea. If it weren't for wider society, nothing would happen. It's that simple. It may be the minority rich who currently control flows of money, production decisions and the like across the western hemisphere and beyond, but without the input of the exploited masses, (i.e the majority) their wealth and decision-making would count for nothing. The rich and powerful need people to fight their wars, to manufacture their weapons, to transport their commodities, to endlessly transfer their money around the globe, to sweat in the sun as they stitch footballs for $1 per day so that such balls may be delivered to Manchester United football club and sold for £40 plus etc etc....


I also agree with your claim that should we ever be minded to adopt some of the ideas you suggest, then we might be better placed to "help others in a way like never before". Yes! But we must become conscious of the need for change, and on a massive scale before we are able to help people in such a manner. By this I mean helping people simply because they are human. Not because such an act stands to earn me a few dollars (or pounds sterling). In short, not helping people as a means to an end, namely to make money but instead as a end in itself.




Colin

[tranquildrifter]

Hmm... this may take a minute of your time. But I have to:

First, a stylistic thing, look at your intro paragraph. You have basically said nothing, as you continually qualify and/or (but not always) inline edit (or revise) what you say. No offense. But go ahead and hit us over the head right off and explain later.

I feel you are right to connect the governmental structure (super-structure, if we are to play around with Marx for awhile, and we may as well) to the nature of society. It does not take much thought to connect the nature of man to the nature of the environment in which he is raised. However, you lose this argument altogether by not actually addressing it:

...evidence exists to suggest that the principle of 'investment purely for profitable return' does not, and indeed could not, socially function throughout society in an absolute sense.

There really isn't any evidence for this. Common sense tells us that no ideology functions in an absolute manner in any situation what so ever. Even in single individuals. This is a good point to make, nevertheless, to support what you have begun speaking of, the potential achievement of man if we weren't stricken by this inherently antagonistic mode of life, but that isn't what you look at. I am not sure why that is.

Instead, you go on to list a number of instances, which seemingly prove that this principle does not work. Problem is (beside the fact that none of this helps your argument) none of these instances actually contradict the principle stated. Trident submarines and nuclear weapons are an integral part of political Realism (which also seeks to establish the very thing you are trying to refute: that entities act rationally and in self-interest). If anything they do not exist for a loving humanitarian purpose, but in order to protect (and especially in the case of Britain, US, Russia, etc.) an existing system within an international system (like your class argument, only between countries rather than CEOs and poor homeless guys). I'll ignore the aspect of space exploration because (and I think if really studied this will probably be true) space programs are usually funded because of luck (i.e. powerful people in the right places happen to be interested, the public would be outraged if funding was cut/not increased, matters of national pride, etc.. more analogous to the Mexican example).

The education aspect, well... it doesn't quite work as you have said from what I can see. I can speak frankly for the US, and in doing so, an analogy may be made to apply to the UK. Education, for us damn Yanks, is a central part of the American Dream (i.e. illusion that keeps the lower classes believing in the sanctity of the whole, and possibility in the future), and in this respect functions like an investment for profit (our politicians frequently, ad nauseam, call it 'investing in the future,' ...jerks...). Because of this, even if the 'system' did not want to fund education at all, it would have the shit kicked out of it because it is simply assumed that education is a right (at this point I would like to point out that the nature of education and the feelings/emotions/contention that goes along with it in the US is extremely complex and usually unproductive. I know not if that is the case in the UK). Further, educating the masses (public education) helps select those who excel to move up (higher education) and then further the economy in any number of sectors. Education does, in so, so many ways, create wealth for the nation, just as it can (...) for the individual.

Finally, you move on to an example (Mexico) that could work toward your argument: an example of people giving what they can without expectation of return (sort of like the space programs, only more practical). So what does this require? Bear with me. Generally, help like this follows the 'help your self before you help others doctrine' (like the oxygen masks on airplanes). Someone will say, "but there are people who will live in poverty just to help those that live in poverty." Yes. This is true. But in their minds, living in poverty is okay to that extent. Their needs are met (they are living) and then their wants are met (they are helping others). These are, fundamentally, aberrations--those who do not subscribe to highly materialistic lifestyles.

You tell us early:

we are seemingly prevented from meeting the needs of this homeless man. In my view, this is not least because the maximum utilization and deployment of our rich resources is inhibited due to the resources in question being largely subordinate to the endless quest for profit

Yet you didn't find the seeds of your argument until near the end, where they were lost without ample time to grow. Instead you focused on a hazy argument involving deviations from your principle where they don't actually exist. Your conclusion is not incorrect in the least. We need a dramatic social change and (if you wish to continue with Marx) that requires a shift in the overlying structure of society (otherwise we just breed more greedy jerks, and American politicians... eeeek!).

Your problem with monies being funneled into the wrong places for the wrong reasons is certainly exemplified by your mention of military spending (last I checked, US spends roughly the same amount on its military as the rest of the world combined-a rather giant portion of which is pensions and health care as opposed to nukes and submarines. Yet the largest single group of homeless in our country are veterans... I am completely bewildered). But recognize that misappropriations like this are really little different in function than a rich person deciding to buy an expensive car rather than donate to the homeless shelter. This, too, is a product of the superstructure's imposing nature. I would say the reason endeavors like the one you mention in Mexico are so few and far between is because the likelihood of the aberration is far decreased by the very homogenizing effect of government which seeks to synthesize myriad voices into one (the good guys, always fewer, get shouted out).

Sorry... you make a very, very good point, one very dear to my own heart. But your argument, in effect, does not say much more than here is a problem, here are some things we do which are related to the problem, here is the problem again.

[colinbaker62]

Hi tranquildrifter and thank you for this considered reply.

I take on board many of your criticisms, that much is certain. Unlike the majority of my other essays, this was not really intended to be an essay at all. More a simple capturing of thoughts relating to the reality of the situation as I see it. The first paragraph, in this sense, was less of an introduction in a formal essay style, and more a scene-setter if you like, for the following paragraph's narrative element. I understand your concern about qualification relating once more to the first paragraph but I have to say that I recognise no problem with the qualification of one's claims. Qualification is the stuff of argumentation for sure.

I am a little less sure as to the purpose of your reference to the superstructure (other than to name-drop). If I drew your thoughts to this element of social relations, then my point was indeed lost. Yes, the government is a part of the superstructure in any given society, but I was not the slightest bit interested in discussing the concept of superstructure and thus, did not do so. What I did do, was to cite a number of examples, (and by no means exhaustive) intended to illustrate the general argument that production and investment purely for profit is not only a myth, but easily overcome by people themselves if only enough of them arrive at the realisation that such possibilities exist here and now, in the only world of which we have any knowledge. What is required to begin effecting such a transition (ideological and material) is a growing realisation as to the need for a rearrangement of our dominant socio-economic pattern of existence.

On the topic of ideology, as you rightly say, no ideology can possibly exist across society in an absolute sense, but what ideology can do, is dominate the thinking of people's national and international relations thus generating a sense of false consciousness in people's minds as to reality itself. For many people, capitalist relations are the only possible kind of existence whereas in reality, capitalism contradicts itself daily by violating its own principles. This was my essential point and nothing more. It is this ideological dominance that needs to be challenged.

Your point about realism is a little confusing to me. I am not sure as to its relevance (other than to name-drop another 'ism' of sorts). I actually studied in great depth in 2004 at university, international relations among and between nation states. If nothing else, this field of study delivered a realisation that realism as a theory of international affairs is an ever more discredited theory not least because of its insistence on the political dimension of international affairs and nothing else. This is not to suggest that we pass realism by. It is, I think, best to conceptualise realism as a theory that can deliver minimal insights of international relations by reductionist means. That said, realist theory per se had nothing to do with my argument about trident. What happens to the weapons once manufactured is one thing. however, it is the principle upon which such manufacture takes place that is the important thing to recognise. Namely, production that does not have profitable return as its immediate aim.

I think your point about education is fair in part. Ever since times of Greek slavery, education has been subordinate to ruling class interests. This is also the case today of course. As you say, in this respect, education might be seen as functioning like an investment for profit. Yet in relation to education also, and not withstanding the corrosive intrusion of private monies into the education system here in Britain, education per se in the U.K., at least up to the age of sixteen is largely provided for from state taxes with no profitable return in sight. Whether some of these educated people go on to contribute to the exploitative system that is capitalism is another matter entirely, and in no small part, a lottery.

Dismissing the space example as you appear to is, I believe, a mistake. Such spectacular spending stands in clear contradiction of the current dominant practices of national and global capitalist business. $3.8 billion spent annually in the pursuit of knowledge rather than profit is significant in my view. To write such spending off is perhaps to miss the point underlying such activity. This spending serves to transcend purely economic considerations. That's the essential point once again.

The principles exemplified by the Mexican example are equally important also and not to be overlooked or denigrated for that matter. The reason why these 'Mexican' principles do not exist on a widespread scale is simply because capitalist relations of production dominate human relations across the globe to varying degrees. People sometimes think this is all there is. Yet examples like that of the house builders in Mexico provide a sharp reminder that this is not the case. And need not be the case should we ever be minded to begin reorganising the pattern of our dominant form of socio-economic relationships. It is not simply a rational choice as you imply, namely like someone choosing to buy a car or help the poor. This is to view human decision-making and intent in absolute abstraction from society itself. People choose to buy fast cars, or to help the homeless, or to build nuclear weapons, or to demonstrate against war because their particular interests are historically conditioned by material circumstances.

The principles of investment solely for profit are clearly being overridden on a daily basis then. Yet imagine what might be achieved, if as a species, a majority of us suddenly and consciously come to realise that production need not be subordinate to profit at all (as we are endlessly told by politicians and others that it must be), but instead, is able to be directed at meeting the needs of people. When we begin to engage in a mutual exchange of activities on a significant scale (as opposed to a mutual exchange of commodities) then a real transformation of society en masse is a real possibility.

I think your underlying message was that the work was somewhat untidy in its presentation. I wholly accept this point. Your additional caveat however, that the point of the writing was lost is perhaps a conclusion arrived at, because the essential message of the writing itself, was missed. In each of the writing's examples, so-called sacrosanct capitalist principles are overridden.


Thank you again for commenting

[tranquildrifter]

Hmm... okay.

I am a little less sure as to the purpose of your reference to the superstructure (other than to name-drop).

I'm not sure of things where you are, but no body in the US is ever impressed simply by making mention of Marx. But when you are concerned about the misappropriation of money, effort, energy etc. and admitting a good deal of this stems from the governmental structure, specifically free-market capitalism -- well, I guess my question is why do you think this doesn't apply? From what I see, Marx outlines the very thing you are talking about. You are concerned about the social implications of a system like ours, so was he. (Be it known I am not a Marxist and certainly am not advocating a Marxist revolution.)

ideology can do, is dominate the thinking of people's national and international relations thus generating a sense of false consciousness in people's minds as to reality itself

Here you are angling toward the same concept. The super structure creating a particular consciousness. Realism is also an ideology handed down from this system. Not necessarily a correct one (in fact very, very deficient), yet one that does exist and works counter to the goals you express just as the people's false reality, etc..

I don't think I described what I meant re the space program very clearly. I dismiss it initially because it does not fit in with your other examples, mostly because it is closer to the example of the Mexican house building project. In the US, the space program is largely a matter of national pride. I don't mean that it is not an important endeavor, but that most Americans are unlikely to be too terribly concerned about what we are doing in space. It remains funded because there are those who recognize the potentials of scientific research and discovery--though I think it would be very difficult to establish whether that recognition stems simply from human curiosity and desire for advancement or from more material roots. Like education, in the US there is a lot of political workings behind the funding of such programs and it is a formidable thing to analyze conclusively.

Taken together, my criticisms primarily focus on the weakness in your argument trying to refute that the system works solely toward profit. This weakness shows in the examples you use. These do not prove anything one way or the other, with a simple shift in perspective, military systems, space programs, education etc, can either be acts of selfless beneficence, or vital components to the maintenance of the capitalist systems in place. Sometimes they operate as both (education and space). My question is then, how does refuting this principle of yours show the potential of mankind? I answer that, in these examples, it does not.

The largest exception was your Mexican home building example, which, I belive, very much demonstrates the possibilities of the future. This example, however, is an abberation (as I mentioned) and is contrary to the mean within our current system. You talk of all these contradictions in the capitalist system manifest in these several examples as if you expect people to change without a change in the system. You think capitalism is responsible (at least to a significant degree) for the selfish nature of man today? I would agree with you. But I would point out that Marx, in this context, is indeed useful, if for no other reason than he provides valuable terminology with which to speak of the issue. You think that you have evidence showing the capitalist system contradicting its own principles, I do not. You have shown some of the good things that can occur in capitalism, which also happen to serve that system.

[colinbaker62]

Hello again tranquildrifter.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about the examples I've used. If you are of the opinion that they are not indicative of human activity in which sacrosanct capitalist principles are being overridden, then sobeit. Such a stance however, is very difficult to defend empirically and logically. Moreover, none of the examples were intended, as you seem to think, to show what is possible in the future in a particular sense. I think from this perspective, you have concentrated on the particular nature of each example and failed to grasp the general principles shared by them all. Namely, money spent (and often vast sums) with no anticipation or even desire of a profitable return. Principles quite alien to the average capitalist I can assure you.

Not-for-profit co-operatives are further examples of these kinds of principles at work. The family is another excellent example of capitalist principles being set to naught. This is not least because most families interact with one another, not as a means to the realisation of values as is the case when it comes to commodity exchange, but simply as a way of exchanging mutual activities. Environmental networks stretched as they are across the globe are yet another example. Yes you are correct to imply that education can assume profitable forms, so too scientific research, so too house building etc..Such research, educational provision and the like is bound to be distorted in its pursuit/delivery under conditions of capitalist exploitation.

But we are now at a stage when such research/ educational provision and the like need not be, even though capitalist economists (whose categories of thought are unable to transcend the here and now) endlessly assure us to the contrary. And if this is the case for research/educational provision and so on, then why not for the whole of society? Why should we now not conceptualise a society premised on relations of non-exploitative forms of human(e) existence? We are, for sure, relentlessly told that to think otherwise is a cardinal sin. These kinds of examples for me however, point the way towards a world without money. Unthinkable? Not at all. It is a conception that goes beyond current categories of thought, that is all. With the political will, such a transformation of society is quite feasible. A world in which people scramble to make profit, and more profit is not the only form of existence open to human beings. That even under conditions of advanced industrial capitalism, this is quite clear, at least to those who wish to see it.

Finally, I think your claim that I expect "people to change without a change in the system" is not fair on two essential counts. First of all, these kinds of issues transcend by miles (or is that kilometers?) the scope of the writing here under discussion. I was not in the slightest interested in extending the work to suggest ways of transforming the economic base as the principle means of transforming ideology. That was not my purpose here. Why you think this is the case is a little puzzling. Secondly, if you are familiar with a number of my previous essays, you will indeed note that I fully recognise that "the system" as you rightly term it, must radically transform if we are at all interested in altering the ways in which people think, feel and act. Essentially, this means transforming private property into collectively owned public property which is itself, a monumental political task. This will be the principle means of emancipating industry from the present limitations placed upon it as a consequence of the