[colinbaker62]

Introduction

When Roger Hargreaves began writing his 'Mr. Men' stories in 1971, little could he have known that he was beginning then, something that would later become a global literary phenomenon. I suppose it is true of many of Hargreaves' Mr. men characters, that they evince familiar human qualities. Perhaps this is one subconscious appeal of his Mr. Men books generally. For example, there is Mr. Bump, Mr. Lazy, Mr. Fussy, Mr. Grumpy, Mr. Miserable, Mr. Nosey, and so the list goes on. Oh yes, and let us not forget Mr. Topsy-Turvy, a most confuzzled Mr. men character if ever there was one. A character moreover, who certainly lives up to his name. For instance, he reads books upside down, he owns an anti-clockwise timepiece, and he even speaks backwards. In short, he is the most confused of fellows.

It is Mr. Topsy-Turvy, perhaps more than any other Mr. Men character, who serves to sum up the contemporary upside down ideology and practical activities of the majority of people existing under conditions of advanced industrial capitalism. It is the argument of this essay, that capitalist relations of production oblige people by degrees, to think and act in wholly topsy-turvy ways. In this context, by applying the related concepts of means and ends to selected examples, I hope to persuade the reader to accept the view that capitalist social relations, in no small part, stand morally and logically condemned. For they oblige people to seek the end happiness of human existence in inanimate things (above all money), while at one and the same time, compelling such people to directly/indirectly use one or more of their fellow beings as the only means by which to realise these desired ends. Just as people come to erroneously believe that money makes the world go around and not vice versa, so too under conditions of capitalism, do they come to conceptualise means as ends, and ends, means.

It is one thing of course, to argue that capitalism is immoral, or logically absurd and then to proceed to offer concrete examples of this suggested state of affairs as indeed I intend to do. It is quite another however, to justify one's value judgments. Why should evaluative arguments in favour, ultimately, of supplanting the capitalist mode of existence, carry greater weight than someone's contrary value judgments? Some people after all, believe that competition among and between people, and the endless pursuit of inanimate objects is a wholly desirable, and endearing mode of human existence. Something that has, and always will exist. I will address this issue, both from a philosophical and an historical perspective. Philosophically it will be argued that capitalist relations of production are not in accordance with a human(e) mode of existence, with what it is to be human. From an historical point of view, it will be suggested that the very mode of human evolution itself, now logically, and practically, cries out for the necessary transcendence of divisive social property relations that currently and unavoidably serve to distort people's ideas and subsequent activities, not least those relating to means and ends.

Finally, and having put my case for the need to supplant capitalistic social relations, I will offer the reader (form a UK perspective) my general views as to how we might consciously begin to set about making a reality of this suggested necessary task of social reorganisation. Let us turn first of all however, to the capitalist system itself.

Capitalism

Capitalism, as the dominant form of socio-economic relations among and between human beings is around three hundred years old. It is a form of social existence that is premised on private property relations in which those owning the means of production such as buildings, technology, raw materials, modes of transport, land, patented knowledge etc. oblige a property-less majority to sell them their labour power (intellectual and physical capacities) as the latter's only means of obtaining a share of social wealth. The property owners, for their part, derive profit from such activity by exploiting the workers concerned. Such exploitation is primarily achieved by property owners paying working people less in wages / salary than the full value of the latter's daily expended labour power. This resulting profit may be termed surplus value, and such surplus value is realised from a capitalistic point of view, the moment the commodities in question are sold on the so-called 'free market'.


Ends And Means:

The majority of human action and interaction taking place under conditions of advanced industrial capitalism, therefore, necessarily entails the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of commodities, or what amounts to the same thing, values, as the principle means of species survival. This consumer-centred state of affairs obliges people both ideologically and in their day-to-day concrete affairs, to place the utmost value upon inanimate things and institutions (the latter through which people generally relate to one other) and only secondary value, and sometimes none at all upon the well-being of people themselves along with the enjoyment of human activity itself. It is the amount of wealth that one possesses in money terms (or titles to money wealth) that assumes the form of the ultimate social good under capitalism. And in order to secure this ultimate inanimate good, we are compelled to use our fellow being(s). The commodity produced/offered for sale determines both the nature, and the end of human activity. And this entire state of affairs, as Cornforth (1965, p.342) suggests, is "a logical absurdity and a moral atrocity...[for]...it means subordinating living people, who think and feel, to material things and social institutions that do neither". Under conditions of capitalism, means (objects and institutions) are ends, and what should be ends (people), assume the role of means. Indeed, and in the broadest of senses, those of a religious persuasion conceptualise the very existence of humankind itself, not as an end in its own right to which objects and institutions should logically be subordinated, but as a mere means to the ultimate imagined end, paradise!


It is perfectly true of course that an end, once attained, can itself then assume the role of means to the realisation of further (un) desired ends. For example, political institutions, conceptualised and functioning as they do under conditions of capitalist property relations as ends in themselves, can, and indeed do in turn, socially function, often as coercive political means to the furthering of particular economic interests. Similarly money, once earned, becomes a means by which further ends (commodities of one or other kind) are secured by the given individual or group of people concerned. "However satisfying any one activity or its results may be to the individual or individuals concerned, it is always, when viewed in relation to the wider field of social life and to other individuals and other activities, done or achieved not only for its own sake but for the sake of something else...But in the communist conception of social ends, the development of the totality of personal activities, as distinct from particular activities within it, is not advocated for the sake of anything else, but its own sake. And here is the only absolute in human evaluation" (Cornforth, 1965, p.345).


As I shortly intend to illustrate, the ultimate desired social end in capitalist society is certainly not that of the development of human activity for its own sake. This is not to suggest that capitalistic topsy-turvy values are absolute. Although unavoidably conditioned by wider society, relationships within the framework of the family for example, often involve little more than the mutual exchanging of human activities for their own sake, as opposed to impersonal human activity merely aimed at the exchanging of commercial values. It is to argue however, that capitalist relations are currently the dominant form of human association throughout the industrialised world and beyond, with all this implies with regard to the manner in which people often uncritically and spontaneously think and act. Our particular conceptions relating to that of means and ends are of the utmost importance. For whenever we are required to make value judgments and moral social considerations of any kind, we necessarily make decisions involving means and ends, and the subordination of the former to the latter. And the validation of ends, and the means that these ends exact, or else stand to exact, are always open to question.



Objects As Ends:

In capitalist society, the most highly prized 'end' that anyone can strive to attain, is that of money. To be human in capitalistic terms, one first of all requires this ultimate of all inanimate objects. For the aim of capitalist society, is for people to endlessly produce and consume goods and services, essentially so that the property-owning producers make profits. Work, is the basis upon which all forms of human society ultimately depend and it is work under conditions of capitalism that yields its reward in money form. From an employee's perspective, the money commodity primarily finds social expression as wages, or else salary payments. From a property owner's perspective, money and more money, is a consequence of the realisation of profit in the abstract market place, either as a result of sales from production, or else from the provision of one or other service. In either case, the respective recipients of such wealth must then use their share of it, or a proportion thereof, in various ways and to varying degrees, as their only means of continuing to secure life's necessities and wants. Money in this sense is god-like, mediating between a given person's desired inanimate ends, and the said person's subsequent material quest to realise these ends through the buying and selling of particular commodities (goods and services).

Let us briefly consider a small number of concrete examples as a way of illustrating the fundamental point that under conditions of capitalism, people, spending as they do the majority of their lives earning an income and/or chasing profits, necessarily seek human happiness in the endless buying and selling of tangible and intangible commodities. Put simply, capitalist relations of production oblige all those affected by such socio-economic relationships to value by degrees, what we can get and sell as commodities, and not simply what we do for one another merely because we are human. Last week, the following headline faced me in a British newspaper:

"Shoppers turn out at 5am as Boots lays on oceans of anti-aging lotion"

(The Guardian, May 5, 2007, p.17)

Boots chemist, for those readers who may not know, is the dominant pharmacy store here in Britain. The Guardian article retold the story of consumers who had queued, some for many hours, to be some of the first people in Britain to gain access to Boots' anti-wrinkle serum called 'No 7 Protect and Perfect'. Or, as the journalist in question termed it, "the latest must-have item". A product moreover, that transcends gender differences with men and women alike, scrambling to get their personal share from the particular Manchester store in question. An all-round potential source of income for producer and retailer alike.

A similar example, albeit of a somewhat more intense nature, took place in London's West End in early April 2007. The clothing retail giant 'Primark' opened its doors at its new store at 09-45 hrs on the day in question, with some would-be shoppers having queued throughout the night. With the doors opened, chaos ensued with consumers pushing and trampling upon the fallen in their personal rush for goods (objects). Such a rush was not helped by the rumour that all first-day offers were to be priced at just £1 which, needless to say, was not the case in reality. "At one point, Primark was forced to stop entry to the store in order to bring the situation under control... One shop assistant received minor injuries and a door was reportedly broken in the surge" (Alexander, 2007).

Both these examples then, albeit in slightly exaggerated ways, illustrate well the topsy-turvy ideology underpinning the actions of such consumers, namely the desire to secure, retain and enhance happiness and human well-being through the appropriation of inanimate manufactured things as opposed to the mere fostering of human activity for its own sake. Put bluntly, we value things we get and not what we might mutually do for one another as humans. The fact that such people do not consciously realise that this is the case does not devalue the fact that they are indeed, doing just that. There are of course, also endless examples as one might expect, of more diplomatic forms of consumerism. For example, millions upon millions of people tend to embrace designer labels or brand products. Again, I would argue that this is indicative of humans subconsciously and uncritically seeking the end good or value in life, through their activity of purchasing and wearing such brand names. Nike, the global sportswear manufacturer exemplifies this kind of spending in pursuit of designer goods. In early 2006, Nike recorded impressive profit increases of 19% on the previous year. This meant that Nike's overall annual profits, its total money commodities, for the period in question stood at $325m or £186m (BBC News, Business, 2007). Small wonder then, that Nike gets its name from the Greek goddess of victory. £186m each year is a handsome victory in anyone's book under conditions of competitive capitalist property relations.

Another very interesting illustration of people seeking the end value of human existence in things is arguably witnessed in the consumption of art forms such as fictional writing, folklore, films and the like. One able anthropologist suggests that the psychology of myth and folklore among primitive peoples has "a therapeutic effect similar to that of the novel or film in our day. By transporting men and women [for example] into a realm where problems are solved as they rarely are in actual life, [both myth and] folklore show [themselves] as a means of psychological release of tension and creative self-expression on both the conscious and unconscious levels" (Lewis, 1969, p.186). Consider for a moment, the contemporary genre of fantasy writing in this context. We do not have to search very far in our efforts to discover the popularity of this style in works like Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian, J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and in more recent times, J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter books.

Similarly, contemporary folklore along with the motion picture are both alive and well in the twenty-first century. Concerning folklore, one source records 31 contemporary categories and this is not including the sub-sections! (Wikipedia, Folklore, 2007). From my own cultural perspective, the particular widespread phenomenon of joking for example, a sub-genre of folklore narrative, (and a means of psychological release for many in contemporary capitalist society?) was fairly recently the subject of academic study at Hertfordshire University, England when Richard Wiseman and his team sought, among other things, the national, cultural and demographic significance of joke-telling (Wikipedia, World's Funniest Joke, 2007). If nothing else, the fact that such an academic study took place at all, is indicative to my mind of the pervasiveness of joking, not least in its various book forms, and thus its ongoing significance in western society generally.

Turning to the film genre, consider a quote describing the current success (i.e. consumption) of 'Spider-Man3, released in 2007. "Spider-Man 3 has remained the most popular film in North America, earning six times as much as its nearest rival on its second weekend of release. The action movie generated $60m (£30.3m) in three days, early estimates suggest" (BBC News, Spider-Man3, 2007). Not only are such art forms sought after by people merely in their quest for things and to consume things, but also in many cases I believe, to psychologically escape in a fashion suggested by Lewis, a world in which an endless stream of seemingly insoluble problems race up to meet them, day after day after day. Living life, consciously or otherwise, as a commodified thing to be used in various ways by others, is anything but human(e).

Even when we consume more intangible things (many services) as opposed to tangible manufactured goods, we still ultimately do so merely to get what we can for ourselves. The more immaterial services for sale in the contemporary capitalist market place include such commodities as financial and legal advice, insurance provision, the services of those employed in luxury health farms, those selling sexual favours and so on. The people who consume such services are essentially seeking value in something someone can do for them, rather than what someone can make for them. Thus for example, people pay for someone employed in a health farm to massage their body, or place slices of cucumber over each of their eyes while the provider of such a service reassures the respective consumer that they are indeed, beautiful; others pay to obtain financial or legal advice which they hope will personally save them money in some way or another; others may buy the services of a prostitute for a time as a means of personal sexual release and so it goes on. Just like those who scramble and shoulder-charge one another for tangible goods, the consumers of more intangible services engage in such activity for exactly the same reasons: namely to appropriate for themselves what they can.

To conclude this particular section, I want to briefly consider peculiar uses of the English language as a further means of underscoring my general argument that things or objects, whether tangible or intangible, are not only the values that we unconsciously cherish but also the values that all of us must seek to appropriate by degrees under relations of advanced capitalism. Personification in this regard, is but one linguistic manner in which we sub-consciously articulate our preponderance with everything inanimate. We speak as if non-living commodities are quite the opposite. For example, we talk of motorcars in terms of the female sex issuing in such statements as 'She's a beauty!', 'She's running smoothly', 'She's ticking over fine' and so on. Similarly, in Britain, when a member of the Royal Family attends a boat-launching ceremony to christen the vessel in question, he or she says something along the lines of 'God Bless Her, and all who sail in Her'. While such a statement does indeed make reference to those 'humans' who intend to sail in the vessel, we are still obliged to conceptualise the vessel itself as a person and in essence, the central 'thing' in the whole event. An anecdote of my own also refers to a boat as it happens. I was recently walking past a house, blessed with a generous front garden (now I'm at it, blessing gardens). Anyway, in this garden a speedboat was mounted upon a road trailer. Along a section of the boat, the blue coloured name of the vessel itself was painted against a white background. It read; 'Ain't She Sweet'.



Institutions As Ends:

Not only do we ideologically value and subsequently seek the end good of human activity and existence in tangible and intangible things. We also view institutions and organisations, that we ourselves create, as ends in themselves and not as mere means to the realisation of human ends. As with commodities so too with institutions, instead of them being subordinate to human beings, human beings become subordinated in various ways to their institutions. Having socially created various institutions on the basis of private property and commodity production, people find that such institutions socially function in an impersonal manner to exact service from their very creators. A kind of alien relationship, in which the institution in question, assumes a peculiar kind of independence, influence and even authority above and beyond that of the individual. Under such circumstances, we not only relate to one another as humans for the most part through institutions of one or other kind. But we tend also, to direct our loyalty, respect and so on towards the respective activities of one or more of our existing inanimate institutions, for such institutions become thought of as endearing ends in themselves. Obvious examples of this kind of suggested reification of human relationships includes the practice of people ideologically extolling the virtues of their particular favourite health farm, tourist operator, bank, credit card provider, accountancy firm, law firm and so on. In all such cases, the fact that real people - thinking, feeling human beings - historically create through necessity, and subsequently reside behind the daily functioning of such institutions is wholly overlooked by the majority of those who draw upon the services of such institutions. What is valued by people (consciously or otherwise) in such circumstances, is a particular institution's spiritual social role, or else its general capacity to facilitate people's concrete appropriation, production, distribution, exchange or consumption of commodities.

Let us briefly consider two institutions in a little more detail. Take the nation state for example, as we know it here in the West. Politics, in all its complexity, is conceptualised by the majority under capitalism as an institutional end in itself. A political institution to which people are wholly subordinate, and to which people should be wholly subordinate. A seemingly permanent institution, transcending as it does, generation after generation and with its very own legal and moral system. The state embodies the ultimate authority to legally punish people in various ways; it exists to collect compulsory taxes of various kinds; it formulates and administers the law of the land and more besides. Politics under conditions of capitalism, is still not conceptualised by a majority of people as an institutional means by which, and through which the realisation of non-exploitative human ends is now possible. Neither therefore, are people generally minded to conceptualise the day when coercive politics can finally be discarded forever, as an institution for mediating human relationships. For most people, the state is an endearing fact of life. Yet according to Cornforth (1965), not only can the origins of the authority-wielding western state be explained in terms of its necessary role in arbitrating competing class interests (not least as a consequence of division of labour, and the emergence of private property). It is also the case, as the science of anthropology makes clear, that some people in the world have existed, and indeed continue to exist, perfectly well without an authoritative state institution at all. Indeed, "[t]hese very primitive communities enable us to see that our examination of the institution of government must begin where no visible organisation to exercise authority and enforce law [unlike in the West] is to be found" (Lewis, 1969, p.129). What we must realise, Lewis is essentially arguing, is that while there is no human society without governing relations, not least because man is a social being obliged to act corporately, such government does not automatically assume the form of an authoritative, law enforcing body unless and until that is, human relations assume a class-divided, antagonistic nature. Under these latter conditions an unavoidable material and ideological inversion occurs in which the human induced, impersonal institution comes to be conceptualised as a thing to be revered and highly valued above and beyond the wider needs of the majority of human people themselves. Should the time arrive however, when a majority of informed, conscious human activity is directed towards the establishing of non-exploitative forms of socio-economic relationships aimed at meeting human need as an end in itself, then at such time, so too I believe, will our political institutions begin to be conceptualised and to socially function as means to the realisation of such human ends and not as is presently the case, as institutional ends in themselves, necessarily exacting service and loyalty from people.

Arguably, more profound psychological examples of this kind of reified institutional phenomenon are to be found in the various religious institutions throughout the world. As Dr. Lewis (1958) convincingly argues, religious thought in general, owes its ultimate origins to the fact that when mankind is in a situation in which he is unable to satisfactorily control his particular environment, not least before the advent of modern science, he is compelled by degrees to grasp at supernatural help as the ultimate means of changing himself in emotion and idea. He is compelled to psychologically form and embrace concepts of the supernatural to compensate for his many apprehensions and fears, and his relative inability to transform and master his material surroundings. The Christian Church generally, as Kautsky (1925) among others has shown, owes its origins precisely to the existence of these kinds of human apprehensions and social hazards, the collective sense of helplessness faced and felt by early man in Roman times, along with the ongoing division of labour and subsequent growth of divisive relations of private property. Yet once initiated, this human-induced institution was then, and for many still is today, conceptualised as an end in itself. It thus exacts service from people, for example by way of regular worship and ritual ceremonies, as well as endlessly seeking to justify its own existence through numerous media sources. Its myriad ministers, priests, vicars, bishops and the like, endlessly indoctrinate the population at large with ideas about the noble Church juxtaposed with the idea of a fallen species. Similarly, the Church as an institution, endlessly assures wider society that the only certain means by which we can win salvation is ultimately through uncritical adherence to its teachings.

Undoubtedly, all religion has fulfilled, and much still does fulfil, a necessary psychological role in human relationships. However, it is also I think, legitimate to argue that religion per se, at least in the industrially developed world, can now be regarded as having all but served its historically necessary psychological role as an unconscious historical means to an ultimately conscious historical end. The notion of 'unconscious historical means' basically refers back to the theoretical arguments in the preceding paragraph. For example, while it is beyond doubt that those responsible for initially bringing the institution of the Christian Church into being were acting consciously, it is my view that the particular historical imperatives underpinning and necessitating such mental and practical activity remained unknown to the people in question. This is not to suggest that such religious thinking was, or still is today in many minds, a mere intellectual error. It is rather to suggest that unless and until a majority of people in a given society arrive at a conscious, socially scientific awareness as to their evolving material conditions of existence (including the historically necessitated forms of human association, the existence of specific class antagonisms, inequalities of property ownership, relations of exploitation, the role played by the ongoing division of labour etc...), such people will necessarily form false ideas about their concrete existence. Such ideas reflect the basic fact that people's dialectical relationships with one another and with the natural world are not yet wholly rational and intelligible. At least not in objective, scientific terms. It is in this context, that the Christian Church has functioned, and continues in varying degrees to function as a reified social institution, conceptualised by many people as an institutional end in itself.

Of course, such a conscious, scientific understanding and awareness of human social existence has only become a real possibility in recent times, and only then, in the most industrially developed parts of the world. Perhaps for these countries at least then, the time is approaching when a conscious majority of people, armed with objectively tested scientific knowledge of the natural and social world, can begin to lay claim to humanity's ultimate inheritance - perfectly reasonable and intelligible forms of human association - thus progressively rendering particular religious conceptions of mankind superfluous, along with the institutions through which such topsy-turvy superstitious ideas are currently disseminated.



Humans As Means:

But what of the means themselves by which people pursue their 'cherished' ends? Here again, as the argument thus far has implied, the world, both ideologically and materially is upside down. Instead of concrete human enjoyment and freedom being a sought-after end in itself, as we have seen, the activity of producing and consuming objects and services is instead ideologically regarded, and thus materially pursued as the most valued of all human activity. We ultimately value the things we can produce or appropriate, or else what we can get others to do for us in our necessary role as consumers of one or other service. Consequently, under such conditions of existence, humans generally, are logically and necessarily regarded by producer and consumer alike as means for realising these particular desired ends. Thus, human beings assume the status of objects too, commodities whose labour power (intellectual and physical capabilities) are bought and sold as needs must, in other people's individual and collective efforts to realise their own inner happiness in producing and consuming goods and services. That which we desire, is the tangible or intangible commodity, while the means for realising these topsy-turvy consumer wants, is one or more living, feeling human beings. In this sense, subjective business concepts like those of 'human resources' and 'natural wastage' tend to betray the underlying objective reality.

We saw above that frenzied consumerism is a real phenomenon in today's world. Yet without human beings to make the goods, without people to build the shops and construct the roads, without people to deliver the commodities, and without people to manage and affect the sale of such dead values, human society in its present, dominant capitalistic form would cease to function. At all levels of capitalist society then, humans are subordinate to the naked pursuit of tangible and intangible things instead of things being subordinate to the needs of thinking and feeling beings. Whenever we work, go shopping, make a phone call, insure our home and car, rent or buy a house, take a holiday, buy a bus, rail or plane ticket, attend a restaurant or theatre and in respect of just about every other kind of economic activity we engage in as people, humans under conditions of capitalism must endlessly and necessarily assume the role of user and used alike.

We can perhaps note this more clearly, by briefly considering three examples -warfare; money-lending; manufacturing- in a little more detail. Let us begin with the latter, and consider one aspect relating to the particular activities of footwear giant, Nike. It is arguably through the process of capitalistic production itself, that the exploitation of some people by others becomes most apparent. In a general sense, it is obvious that Nike is a global sportswear manufacturer. As was noted, Nike's annual turnover for 2006 was £186m. Yet Nike's international subcontracting relationships for instance, while undoubtedly affording it greater flexibility along with more opportunity to concentrate upon its core activity, is essentially itself a means to an end. Nike is in the business of making money and more money. This is the desirable end it must seek to realise. Either that or go bust ! Subcontracting in this sense, allows Nike to exploit cheap (even child) labour in many parts of the world (i.e. to use the various poorly paid people around the globe, not least in Asia) as means to its desired ends, increased profits through the sale of its goods. Donaghu and Barff (1990, pp.541-2) demonstrate that Nike's 'subcontracting partnerships' by the close of the 1980's were concentrated in the former Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Thailand, South Korea, and Japan. Some of these countries pay, or else once paid in the case of the former Yugoslavia, what might be termed sub-human wage levels.

In Nike's own Corporate Responsibility Report of 2004, we find the following data sets, much of which relates to its subcontracting activities across parts of the globe. Three categories are of interest to us here. Hours, wages and labour.



Working Hours
- In 50% to 100% of Nike's partner factories, work hours exceed Nike's Code of Conduct.
- In 25% to 50% of Nike's partner factories, one day off in seven is not provided (i.e. employees are working 7 days a week).
- In 25% to 50% of Nike's partner factories, work hours exceed legal limit.
- In up to 25% of Nike's partner factories, when workers refuse to work overtime they are penalized.

Wages
- In 10% to 25% of Nike's partner factories, the overtime pay rate is less than the law demands or the calculation for overtime pay is inaccurate.
- In 10% to 25% of Nike's partner factories, the wage calculation rate is inaccurate (i.e. the amount that workers are paid is wrong, and most likely below what they should get).
- In 25% to 50% of Nike's partner factories, wages paid to workers are below the legal minimum wage.

Child Labor
- In 10% to 25% of Nike's partner factories, worker age verification is inconsistent or not well-documented.
- In up to 10% of Nike's partner factories, there are workers younger than Nike's "Child Labor" standard.

(Source: Educating For Justice, 2007)



While capitalist production in general is a taken-for-granted phenomenon across many parts of the globe, the particular topsy-turvy nature of such production is almost always overlooked. Nike's particular subcontracting relationships in this regard are but one example by way of which a company uses human beings, in this particular case through the manipulation of wages, working hours and the direct exploitation of child labour, as a means to its desired inanimate ends. This kind of productive exploitation of human labour (productive in the sense that the labour in question stands to expand capital for the property-owning capitalist class as a whole) is an unavoidable and ubiquitous phenomenon throughout the profit-seeking capitalist world.

The provision of credit, functions in a similar topsy-turvy manner. Marxist economic theory teaches us that a primary function of any bank in contemporary capitalist society, is to securely hold the various profits and other such titles to money wealth realised in the course of the endless turnover of capital. Such theory also teaches us that a second function of a bank is to lend (rent out) much of its investors' money as its chief means: A) of generating the necessary surplus wealth to pay interest to its many customers; B) of making profits for itself as a financial institution. Thus, banks necessarily conceptualise people as mere means to the realisation of institutional profits, not least through the respective charging of interest rates on borrowed (rented out) monies. This suggested institutional attitude towards people, seeing them purely as means to the realisation of money wealth is strikingly illustrated in recent figures setting forth the levels of personal debt here in 21st century Britain. Credit Action (2007) has gathered, and from a number of sources, illuminating data sets relating to such levels of debt. For example, in April this year, UK personal debt was estimated at £1,325 billion, an increase of 10.4% on the previous year's figure. It is suggested that £54 billion of this current annual figure is made up of credit card debt alone, of which, around 75% is bearing high levels of interest (currently 17.1% on average). In 1993, the equivalent UK total personal debt figure stood at just £400 billion. In other words, the amount of personal debt here in Britain, over a period of around fourteen years, has increased by more than 330%. It is currently estimated that such personal debt, is increasing in one or other manner, by £1 million every four minutes! Some of this increase of course is offset by home repossession, personal bankruptcy and so forth. Nonetheless, each and every UK debtor is, in the last analysis, merely being used by one or other money-lending institution as a means to its desired inanimate financial end. Profit!

Let us lastly turn to what is arguably the most telling contemporary example of people using others as the means with which to realise their own desired inanimate ends, namely, the West's ongoing political pursuit of warfare in the Middle East. In March 2003, Iraq was aggressively invaded by western military forces for a second time in the space of little more than a decade. I would argue that the ultimate end being politically pursued by western state leaders, and on behalf of the capitalist class as a whole, is that of Iraq's oil. Political America for its part, is at the heart of such protracted and ongoing military aggression, meted out as it has been, and still is, to many of Iraq's civilian population. Perhaps America's involvement is not surprising given that "[t]he US [consumes] a quarter of global oil production" and when we consider that Iraq alone, houses 10 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves beneath its soil (New Internationalist, June 2001, pp. 18-19). Thus, Iraq's oil is arguably central to America's ongoing political and economic strengths as the most powerful contemporary industrial nation in the international arena. An international arena moreover, necessarily conditioned as it is by dominant, capitalistic relations of competition and often, overt hostility. Under such circumstances, and as Noam Chomsky has rightly pointed out, Iraq's oil is, quite simply, "a vital prize for any [state] interested in world influence or domination" (Chomsky, 2003, p.150).

The means with which to realise the securing of this 'crude' end assumes the form of people of course. Human beings, in one or other branch of the armed services. And such people themselves, serve both to exact and to suffer a very high price indeed, as a direct consequence of their collective pursuit of the afore-mentioned inanimate end. It is estimated for example, that since the commencement of hostilities in 2003, between 63,744 and 69,795 civilians have been killed in Iraq as a direct consequence of western coalition aggression (Iraq Body Count, 2007). From a coalition point of view, another source suggests that over the same four-year period, Britain has suffered military fatalities numbering 148 while American military fatalities over the same period number 3,401 (Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, 2007). The numbers of American wounded is currently estimated at anything between 23,000 and 100,000 people (Anti War.Com). Fulfilling the role of an end in itself, Iraq's oil is currently exacting the ultimate price.

If one scene from a film sums up this contemporary upside down competitive capitalist world, in which things are the ends people desire, and in which people themselves are the means to the realisation of such ends, it is the particular scene from the 1968 musical 'Oliver' featuring the song 'Who Will Buy?'. In the scene in question, many traders compete for business in the very same street, including a long song seller, a strawberry seller, a rose seller, a knife grinder, a milkmaid, a windmill seller, an onion seller, a beer seller, an orange seller and no doubt many more. Someone even attempts to sell a 'wonderful morning!'. For me, this entire situation epitomises the essence of capitalism. We have overt competition, along with the idea of people as means (the producers of the particular commodities, employees selling, the customers) and inanimate objects as desired ends, namely windmills, beer, the service of knife grinding, milk, onions and so on. The end is always something one must appropriate and not simply something one does for one's fellow being. Oliver the musical was indeed a fantastic film, and no ill will is intended by this comparison. After all, it was only fiction. Nonetheless, it was a scene that for me served to illustrate, and indeed still does illustrate, the essential topsy-turvy and competitive characteristics of our capitalistic world.

Are We Justified In Condemning Capitalist Relations?

If we are to succeed as a species in placing the world back upon its head (it has not always been upside down) and in particular, if we are to begin to tackle the above suggested 'moral atrocities' and 'logical absurdities' associated with capitalistic forms of human association, then I believe we must address the root cause of this ideological and material distortion of values and morals, namely ownership of private property. It is one thing however, to suggest that capitalism is immoral, or logically absurd, but quite another to justify one's particular value judgments. Why should mine, or anyone else's evaluative arguments in favour of the supplanting of capitalist relations carry greater weight than someone's contrary value judgments advanced in favour of the capitalist system? Many people after all, believe that capitalism as a socio-economic system has delivered, and indeed continues to deliver much good to individual and wider society alike. Such people may reply, 'so what!', when others raise concerns as to the suggested upside down nature of means and ends. On what basis then, do we arrive at particular value judgments as to what should, or should not be, in light of what is?

There are, I believe, two aspects to this process. In order to judge a given society or an aspect thereof, it is necessary first of all, to consider the particular subject matter with which one is concerned, in a concrete manner. With regard to human society, this means pursuing empirical questions such as: How is man compelled to secure his means of existence in order to meet his individual and collective needs? How, why and for what ends is social stability achieved and maintained? These are the kinds of questions that have served, among other things, to inform the choice of examples drawn upon in this essay. The second aspect, the more general element on the other hand relates to one's broad, scientifically based theory of man and his evolving social existence. Such a general theory essentially enables us to answer the moral question: What is the most desirable form of human association? This is because a synthesis of the empirical and the general allows us to compare what is, with what we believe should be. Similarly then, it is my general conception of mankind that has informed my evaluative reasoning throughout this work. Needless to say, the greater the evidence to support one's general theoretical conception of man, the greater the likelihood of our value judgments ultimately reflecting and according with reality. We must now explore in a little more detail, the idea relating to general theories of mankind and his evolving socio-historical existence.

General Theories Of Man:

A Philosophical Dimension:

Many people, and from all walks of life, extol the virtues of capitalism as a socio-economic system. What unites them all to this end, is the fact that they draw upon their shared, general conception of mankind in order to arrive at a decision as to capitalism's concrete desirability. Capitalist philosophy for its part, essentially views man as a competitive type. A being suited to the so-called laws of the jungle. Sometimes social, yet when needs must, aggressive and war-like. Someone who is instinctively individual, who must endlessly struggle and compete with his fellow being as the most satisfactory means of acquiring the (inanimate) necessities of life. For this reason alone, those ascribing to such a world outlook see nothing of particular empirical concern in contemporary western society. For them, the afore-mentioned scramble for commodities at Boots and Primark for example, and the loss of human life in the Middle East are simply the logical consequences of competitive, individualistic and often aggressive human behaviour in an equally competitive world. This kind of conception of mankind has found a voice in one or other form, throughout the entire historical existence of capitalism, and increasingly so in more recent times. The zoologist Desmond Morris for example, in his 1960's book 'Naked Ape' puts forward his now well-documented conception of man as being a naturally aggressive animal, on an instinctive par with the ape (Lewis, 1972). Sigmund Freud views human nature in a similar fashion, asserting that human relationships embody an 'ineradicable aggressive dimension' as a consequence of the complex inner-workings of the human mind. Bertrand Russell, for his part, suggests that man inherits his aggressive instinct from past generations of 'savages' (Lewis, 1962). One does not have to dig too deeply in order to unearth other similar views of man either as someone who is hopelessly aggressive, or else someone who is fiercely competitive and individualistic.

For my part, I think this conceptualisation of mankind is not only false, but essentially an ideological consequence of a concrete reality in which humans are often compelled to behave more like lower order animals in order to survive as a species. I believe that man is a social and communal being. He finds little, or else no value at all in conflict and individualist behaviour, and everything in the realm of co-operative association as the most favourable method of securing the means of life. Dr. Lewis, an authority on human evolution and anthropology, argues that "from [the time of Homo sapiens]...to the discovery and development of agriculture in the great river basins about 4000 BC we find no evidence of antagonistic relations between men...In these early times man becomes moulded into an ethical being by interactions with other members of his social group. He finds value in co-operation and mutual dependence, and considerably less in aggressiveness and self-sufficiency. That social stability, upon which the survival and comfort of the individual depends, and that moral satisfaction upon which stability of character depend, arise from maintenance of relations with his fellow men which are mutually advantageous" (1962, p.52). In the very same book, and with specific reference to the necessary forming of communal relations, Lewis further suggests that not only can humans merely use tools in common with many other animals, but also 'fashion' tools to meet their desired ends. In this way, humans have progressively, and necessarily evolved communal associations, along with language as the best means for disseminating and passing from generation to generation skills that have proven their utility to the human species over time. "With isolated individuals, every acquired skill would be lost with their death. A social community, so to speak, is immortal" (Lewis, 1962, p.42). On a similar theme, Lewis (1974) suggests that "anthropologists who have lived for long periods among primitive peoples offer no reports of [examples of behaviour involving suggested] innate aggression (p.89). Likewise, Leanord Berkowitz (1962), in his book 'Aggression, A Social Psychological Analysis', asserts that in his considered opinion, mankind has no instinctive aggressive drive whatsoever. Nothing I have read in more recent times, convinces me to depart from the views of those such as Lewis, Berkowitz and others of like mind. In the work 'Aggression: The Myth Of The Beast Within', for example, Klama (1988) squarely, and convincingly challenges the view that man is a naturally aggressive animal.

If man is indeed a social, co-operative and communal being, dependent for his very species survival upon such behaviour, then capitalism must logically stand morally condemned on this account, for it necessitates the complete anti-thesis of this kind of communal and co-operative existence. Instead, it encourages and fosters relatively aggressive, competitive, and individualistic human relations which ultimately serve to subordinate living beings to non-living things. I happen to share the conception of mankind as set forth by Lewis and others of similar persuasion. Thus do I see much to worry about when faced with concrete happenings like the scramble and subsequent trampling of humans by other humans, in their mad dash for inanimate objects.


An Historical Dimension:

There are good reasons also, to question the imagined permanency of contemporary capitalism from an historical point of view, although it is just as well to remember that the historical is at one and the same time, philosophical, just as philosophy itself, cannot be fully understood, unless it is considered in its historical development and context. The essential philosophical premise underpinning the following historical argument then, is that which asserts 'Humankind makes its own history'. In this sense, and as will be shown momentarily, those who morally condemn capitalism's topsy-turvy nature are, I believe, historically justified in doing so. For sure, history generally, can be downplayed or even ignored completely in one's account of people and society, but to embrace an essentially ahistorical conception and interpretation of the phenomenon we term capitalism, (as for example did Max Weber in his general analysis of capitalism, from a so-called 'value-free' perspective) is I fear, to think and reason metaphysically, in abstraction from concrete, historical reality.

From an historical perspective then, it is critical first of all, to recognise that the process of human evolution itself, has qualitatively transformed from that of a biological phenomenon, to that of a social phenomenon. In other words, mankind's evolutionary process itself, has evolved. No longer is it the case that humans depend upon genetic modification as the principle means of human progress. As Lewis reminds us, "[t]he modifications in bodily form or brain capacity during the past two to three thousand years are negligible. The over-estimation of them inclines us to miss the far more significant operation of social evolution" (1962, p.49).

So what are the basic 'why's' and 'how's' of this suggested social evolutionary process and what relevance does it have to capitalism in particular? Think for one moment if you will, of a mechanical typewriter. "In 1875, Christopher Sholes with assistance from Amos Densmore rearranged the typewriter keyboard so that the commonest letters were not so close together and the type bars would come from opposite directions. Thus they would not clash together and jam the machine. The new arrangement was the QWERTY [keyboard]" (Idea Finder, 2007). So too in social affairs, must we periodically set about rearranging our dominant property relations, our historically specific form of socio-economic organisation for getting the job done, as a direct consequence of dynamic advances in our productive forces. This ongoing contradiction between on the one hand the productive forces, and on the other, the respective property relations in existence, is the essence of social evolution. The contradiction between the two, this tendency to 'socially jam up' as it were, basically occurs because mankind is faced with a permanent challenge in his productive relationship with nature. This relationship obliges him, as tool-maker and tool-user par excellence, to endlessly seek improvements in the various dimensions of his productive forces, not least his collective knowledge base. The productive forces as a rule therefore, are wholly dynamic, often developing at great speed. Social relations themselves however, once (legally) established, tend to assume a conservative quality, sometimes remaining stable for many centuries, in no small part as a direct consequence of their enshrinement in law. Thus, the forces of production can, and indeed do develop to such a stage whereby they dynamically outgrow the dominant social property relations in existence. At this stage, the dominant relations of production begin to retard and hamper, as opposed to facilitate progressive uses of the respective evolving productive forces. Either this, or else such conservative property relations necessarily direct productive capacity along ever more regressive and destructive channels. It is at this point that form (man's pattern of property relations) must be brought back in line with function (desirable social uses of the productive forces) if further progressive social development is to be realised.

Human history clearly illustrates this social evolutionary process from the lower to the higher of both productive forces, and social relations. Turning first to the latter, and drawing on the work of Eaton (1949, pp.13-14), we can immediately note four qualitatively differing forms of human association to date, namely primitive communism, slavery, feudalism and capitalism. Primitive communistic forms of social relations Eaton suggests, were the dominant form of human association from around 5550 BC to approximately 2000 BC. Similarly, Eaton regards slave relations as having spanned the period between approximately 2000 BC and 475 AD, feudalism from around 475 AD to approximately 1700 AD, and from this latter period in history, capitalistic forms of human association have progressively evolved to embrace the globe albeit on an unequal and uneven basis. The argument that our productive forces endlessly evolve is also, I think, difficult to contest. Such progression is demonstrated once more, by reference to Eaton's same work. Thus, from around 5550 BC through to approximately 2000 BC inventions have been noted such as the hoe, sickle, spindle loom, wheeled vehicles, harness, sail and bellows. Following this, from around 2000 BC to approximately AD 475, Eaton notes further advances in the forces of production including smelting and the effective use of iron, more specialised tools for agriculture like the pulley and sheep shears, cranes, the heavy plough, nail-making anvils, general uses of animal power and so forth. Then, from around AD 475 to about AD 1700, Eaton charts yet further key inventions like the windmill, waterpower for fulling and crushing, generalised animal power, modern ploughs, modern rudder, block printing and the lathe. Finally, he ventures relatively up to date with the period spanning AD 1700 to the mid-point of the twentieth century noting such inventions as the Newcomen engine, coke smelting, the spinning jenny, Watt's rotative engine, the first locomotive, telegraph, the turret lathe, Bessemer steel. Since the mid twentieth century of course, man has split the atom, walked on the moon, probed space (literally!), flown faster than sound itself, modified plant and animal genes, communicated across continents in real time via the internet, secured fantastic advances in the world of medicine and so on.

If one considers Eaton's historical findings relating to both the productive forces and the property relations, it will be remarked that quantitative developments in the former, ultimately result in, nay necessitate, qualitative transformations in the latter. Human history then, is a history punctuated by revolution and counter-revolution not least because dominant forms of property relations, ever since the ending of primitive communistic relations, have been characterised by relationships of exploitation and thus, antagonistic economic interests as a direct consequence of private property ownership. No property-owning class in history has yet freely relinquished its sectional grip upon the social productive forces without a political fight of one or other kind. In today's world, exploitative capitalist property relations have come not only to distort thinking and being as noted earlier. They have also come to hamper, just like communistic, feudal and slave relations before them, the further progressive uses to which our evolving productive forces can be put. For example, and as a direct consequence of this contemporary contradiction between capitalist social relations and our now highly advanced productive forces including our social modes of production, our current world is one in which the potential to feed all humans exists, yet many people are still left to starve. Our current world is one in which the productive and distributive potential exists to meet the medical needs of the majority of sick people, yet millions still needlessly die of preventable diseases. Our current world is one in which the possibility exists to socially draw upon the maximum capacity of human productive potential, yet millions of people are still left idle. It is the sectional class interests of capitalists across the globe, that seek to retain these now outmoded property relations for as long as is possible and against the interests of the wider species. And just as primitive communism, slavery and feudalism were, in turn, historically passed over by the most progressive groups in society at the time, so too must the most progressive classes in the twenty-first century become conscious of their task to supplant capitalist property with that of common ownership.

There is nothing however inevitable, about this suggested historical demise of capitalism. It will depend upon a growing number of people becoming consciously aware of the necessity to pass over capitalism as the only route to the establishment of common property ownership, as the best means of once again bringing form, back into line with function. These classless relations will have to be fought for and at a political level (see below), not least because we cannot simply contract out of inherent economic contradictions between property owner and property-less. These kinds of contradictions must be fought to a decisive, political end. Such classless relations are desirable now, not only because they are wholly in accordance with the promotion of the human mode of existence. In other words, they contain the potential to turn the world back upon its head so that people are ends and everything else means. They are also desirable of course, in a more immediate sense, that is in order to once again historically free up the potential in our scientifically advanced productive forces. A potential that is currently strangled by the legal tourniquet of capitalist private property, or else regressively and destructively applied.

The Potential For Social Transformation

If it is now necessary, as I believe it is, to actively and consciously set about transforming capitalism as a social system, how might such a task of socio-economic reorganisation be realised, or at least begin to be realised in practical terms? After all, capital now unifies the entire world albeit on an unequal and uneven basis. Moreover, capitalist ideology, underpinning as it does dominant moral habits, legal systems and the like is an historically well-established phenomenon and has been now, for a number of centuries. Yet I see no reason, assuming that enough people arrive at an intelligent and critical understanding of the need for change, why fundamental transformation of capitalist property relations should not begin to take firm root in a given country, not least one or other advanced industrial nation. That said, there is of course concrete potential for an eventual co-ordinated supplanting of capitalist relations of production on a mass international scale given the contemporary social character of production generally and with it, the numbers of property-less people. Let us consider this idea of social transformation in a little more detail then, chiefly from my own UK perspective.


Politics And Economics:

Although human relations premised on principles other than the exchanging of commodity values for profit can, and do indeed arise within the system of capitalism, (for example numerous non-profit organisations, Trade Unions, charities and the like) such developments are unavoidably conditioned in their own way, by the dominant capitalist property relations in existence. The need therefore, for a progressive and socially scientific mainstream political party is an indispensable element in the drive for fundamental socio-economic reorganisation, as the principle method of realising conditions of publicly owned means of production. A party initially formed and nurtured by people able to profoundly succeed in transcending the incessant indoctrination of capitalist intellectual and moral authority.

Regrettably at present, no such mainstream party exists in contemporary British politics. For sure, there are numerous minor parties, all claiming in their own way to be fighting for the ending of capitalism. For example, there is The Communist Party of Britain, The Communist Party of Great Britain, Democratic Socialist Alliance, New Communist Party of Britain, The Socialist Party, The Socialist Workers' Party and many more. Perhaps in time, and as socio-economic contradictions unavoidably sharpen in Britain in particular and wider capitalist society generally, such political parties, along with others of similar persuasion may derive benefit from a pooling of political resources, experiences and the like or even merge, to form a kind of hybrid mainstream British political party. Then again, perhaps it is the case that the guiding ideas of these minor parties are not broadly in accordance with the actualities of the present situation. On the other hand, perhaps contemporary British political opinion is not yet sufficiently matured to enable it to significantly transcend dominant capitalistic categories of thought. It may well be a mixture of these elements. The fact however, that a so-called left-wing mainstream party - the Labour Party - can command power in Britain over the past ten years while simultaneously initiating and subsequently presiding over numerous privatisations in the wider economy, might well be a sound measure as to the level of the political psychology prevalent throughout contemporary Britain.

Nonetheless, such a mainstream political party, should it emerge, will logically and necessarily aspire by way of free and fair elections, to administer public political power on behalf of the class it represents - all exploited peoples. In western society as it currently exists, this acquisition of state power is the only means to the realisation of broad social change. Then would it become at least possible, to gradually transform the functions of the respective political institutions from those that legally protect private property, to those that function to initiate, foster and defend publicly owned property. This suggested political activity will be wholly feasible in most so-called democratic western societies, should the party in question win decisive political power, backed by a significant body of informed social opinion.

Any progressive political party therefore, will need to fulfil another critical role, namely that of actively raising the political consciousness of the mass of the population. Such political efforts to inform wider society and to demonstrate to the majority that socio-economic reorganisation is in its collective interest, is critical not least because public ownership of the means of production implies democratisation of the production process itself. In this sense, it can only be hoped that as more and more people are politically persuaded to adopt an active role in their respective communities, so too will their political consciousness grow yet stronger, as a direct result of them tackling concrete social problems first-hand. It will surely be this kind of grass roots activity that delivers a sense of political empowerment to each and every member in the given community. It merits repeating however, that before we can even begin to consciously, significantly and lastingly set about transforming the objective world for the good of all, we must first of all succeed in significantly transforming the present myriad non-scientific subjective worlds. We must struggle to raise political consciousness to a socially scientific level.

As a step in this direction, a party's political appeal to wider society, would necessarily transcend individual and sectional interests with rational appeals instead, being made to wider humanity. Any party intent on national, or perhaps even transnational success not least through the establishment of conscious political alliances and so forth, would need, in my view, to appeal to the broad notion of humanity. It would mean arguing the case that social transformation in contemporary times is not merely in the interest of particular groups or classes as has been the case in times past, but instead, is in the interests of all living beings, including the capitalist class itself !

On this broad conceptual basis, and assuming that the majority of political and economic arguments embody direct relevance to people's concrete conditions of life, I would indeed anticipate the emergence and subsequent growth not only of mass political activity and consciousness, but also of political alliances both within and between respective cultures. For example, alliances could be won among and between currently existing civil society groups and institutions such as Trade Unions, workers' cooperatives, voluntary organisations, various environmental groups and so on. It is true that western civil institutions and organisations are a mixed bag in terms of their political, economic, cultural and social origins. However, I believe many such institutions and organisations, especially those overtly critical of capitalist state activity, could well be persuaded to form mutual political networks as a means to an overall collective human end.

As implied above, broad economic concerns would naturally dovetail with such political activity and envisaged social transition. Again, and primarily from a British perspective, this would mean among other things, state power being purposefully directed to the conscious control of import and export activities (not least flows of finance) with a view to subordinating such activity to the overall conscious planning of economic affairs. It would mean consciously planning economic production for direct use to meet the concrete needs of the people in question. Currently, production decisions are largely divorced from concrete human needs and are instead, motivated by the blind class-limited criteria of profit and the extension of capitalist markets.

This idea of direct use further implies a democratisation of decision-making throughout society, not least a much-needed democratisation and convergence of legislative decision-making, and subsequent executive activity. Such democratisation is vital because a society premised on the public ownership of productive capacity for direct use ultimately means that working people themselves will eventually assume overall guidance of the economy. This aim is perfectly reasonable and intelligible given it is people on the ground as it were, in our villages, towns and cities who presumably know better than anyone else what needs to be produced as a matter of concrete social priority. Why not involve and ask these people? And let us not loose sight of the fact that it is the broad mass of working people that ultimately keeps the economy functioning. It is their intellectual and physical labour power and collective skills that in the last analysis, gets the job done for Britain as a whole. There is no reason whatsoever, why these people should not apply their collective labour power and skills under more humane conditions of existence than is currently the case.

There is, of course, no inevitability in all this. In making such a claim, I mean that there is no metaphysical blue-print as to how a given country or group of countries could, or should proceed in their efforts to realise a state of affairs in which human association is merely based on the desire to satisfy human need. The concrete situation (political, economic, social) must endlessly be judged at a local, national and international level and subsequent policies formulated in accordance with concrete conditions. In so far as thought is the direct agent of change, people might well misjudge reality just as a doctor sometimes makes a bad diagnosis. Then again, the trial and error process of scientific hypotheses, socially formulated and applied by a politically conscious majority devoid of the need to defend economic privilege, may not be too far off the mark. Let us hope that the latter is to the fore when the time well and truly arrives for people to necessarily reorganise their dominant form of human association, or else disintegrate as a society.

Conclusion:

Capitalist forms of human association serve to put the world upon its head. We erroneously believe that objects and institutions are the valued ends for which we should all strive as humans. Conversely, we must use one or more of our fellow beings to achieve these ends, and therein rests the ultimate contradiction. As Cornforth said, not only is this a logical absurdity, it is also a moral atrocity. We have indeed considered several examples of this suggested logical absurdity and moral atrocity. The general centrality of money in people's lives. Shoppers feeling obliged to race against, charge and trample one another in their never-ending quest for commodities. Nike, ruthlessly exploiting human beings in far off parts of the world in its quest for ever-greater profits. Institutions like the Church and the state assuming an alien-like life of their own, exacting service from people. The subordination of human life (and subsequently thousands upon thousands of deaths) as a political means with which to realise the valued end of securing Iraq's oil reserves. As we have seen, not only are there valid reasons -a mixture of empirical, philosophical and historical considerations- for us to strive for capitalism's negation. There are also valid grounds for believing that the practical potential for transforming capitalism into non-exploitative communal property relations is anything but utopian. It is in fact, a pressing concrete political and economic challenge with which those most profoundly affected must now begin to grapple. In this context then, surely the day must soon arrive, when Mr. Topsy-Turvy is at last shown up for who he really is - Mr. Silly !






REFERENCES




Alexander, H. (2007) Pandemonium as Primark opens its doors [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/ma...nprimark06.xml


Anti War. Com Casualties in Iraq, The Human Cost of Occupation [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://antiwar.com/casualties/


Berkowitz, L. (1962) 'Aggression, A Social Psychological Analysys' New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.


BBC News Business [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/4831234.stm


BBC News Spider-Man3 [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6652237.stm


Chomsky,N. (2003) Hegemony or Survival:America's Quest for Global Dominance. Penguin Books,London.


Cornforth, M. (1965) Marxism and the Linguistic Philosophy. Lawrence and Wishart, London.


Credit Action [Accessed online, June, 2007] Available at: http://www.creditaction.org.uk/debtstats.htm


Donaghu, M. T. and Barff, R. (1990) Nike just did it: international subcontracting, flexibility and athletic footwear production, Regional Studies, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp.541-2


Eaton, J. (1949) Political Economy. A Marxist text Book. Lawrence and Wishart, London.


Educating For Justice Stop Nike Sweatshops [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://www.educatingforjustice.org/s...sweatshops.htm


Idea Finder [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/qwerty.htm


Iraq Body Count [ Accessed online, May 2007 ] Available at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


Iraq Coalition Casualty Count [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://icasualties.org/oif/


Kautsky, K (1925) Foundations of Christianity Monthly review Press, New York.


Klama, J. (1998) (pseudonym) [John Durant, Peter Klopfer, and Susan Oyama, with others]. Aggression: The Myth of the Beast Within. Wiley, New York.


Lewis, J. (1962) Man and Evolution. Lawrence and Wishart, London.


Lewis, J. (1969) Anthropology Made Simple. Howard and Wyndham Company, London.


Lewis, J. and Towers, B. (1972) Naked Ape or Homo Sapiens? The Garnstone Press, London.


Lewis, J. (1974) The Uniqueness of Man. Lawrence and Wishart, London.


New Internationalist, June 2001, Issue 335.


The Guardian, May 5, 2007, p.17


Wikipedia Folklore [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklor...es_of_folklore


Wikipedia World's Funniest Joke [Accessed online, May 2007] Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_funniest_joke

[psrey]

A part--most certainly not all!-- of what you are bringing to light here, if I'm not mistaken, is capitalism's role in objectifying humans in a society which has turned morals into materalism.

However, I'd just had a discussion recently in which someone had said that markets may not be malleable, but there are other ways this problem of objectification can be tackled. As in, the evils of capitalism are more often than not representative of other factors in our society which are being brought out through the system.

Because "the system", and yes, I am also objectifying capitalism here, is so vast and all-consuming that though ailments can be identified, they cannot be fixed by tackling the market and theory alone. There are various cultural factors--ie. selfishness, personal greed, power-hungry mentalities etc. which are responsible for the inception of this system in the first place, and will continue to exist throughout its perpetuation.

So the only way to redress the evils you have described so thoroughly in this paper is to tackle other factors, both cultural and educational. Again, what is capitalism, if a brainchild of, as you point out, of the worst in humanity? Let us correct that, then.

I know I have not done your paper justice, but I was thinking about it this morning, and I thought this would be interesting to share with you. You write very well; there are some minor mechanical errors, but those can be fixed later.

Thank you for your article.

[colinbaker62]

Hello psrey and thank you for these thoughts. I'm not quite sure that I'm saying capitalism objectifies people or that such a system has turned morals into materialism. What I believe is that capitalism obliges each and every one of us, by degrees, to place greater value on inanimate things than we do on people. This is both a necessary and an inevitable consequence of living under a socio-economic system that is based on commodity production.

Morality is not something existing in some dormant state or otherwise, waiting to be 'turned' into something else. Moral principles derive their social value from their social utility. In this sense then, it is better I think, to conceptualise morality as a mental product of the ideological superstructure of capitalist property relations. Change the dominant property relations and morality changes with it. Capitalist morality, is a morality that has historically evolved with the ongoing transformations in productive forces and production relations and has arisen both as a reflection of current capitalistic property relations, and also as an ideological weapon for the interests concerned to defend and, wherever and whenever possible, to expand such relations. Morality in ancient Greece was radically different to morality in today's West. So too the morality of the Middle Ages. The question is, why? The answer as I say, is to be found in the objective, yet transitory property relations in existence at a particular time in history.

Neither do I think I suggested anywhere in the essay that capitalism was a 'brainchild of the worst of humanity'. Again, as with morality, capitalism isn't something that someone, or a group of someones thought up or rationally invented. It is a social system that has naturally and necessarily evolved historically, as the most advanced form of social property relations yet known to mankind. If we accept the philosophical proposition that the world is a conglomeration of processes and not made up of ready-made things with unalterable properties and relations, then capitalism can be seen as just such a transitory social system. An historically specific socio-economic system that was once progressive (not least through much of the nineteenth century), but is now in many ways, regressive or even outright dangerous when we consider aspects of species survival itself.

I take your point that culture is a dynamic and central element in any anticipated transformation of human society. Practical challenges are one factor. I chose to focus on these in the essay in the sense of addressing what I regard to be pressing political and economic aims. That said, I also make the point that nothing happens unless and until enough people arrive at a conscious awareness as to the need for change. This implies a battle of ideas in the realm of the given society's ideological superstructure. Religious ideas must be logically and empirically challenged. So too capitalistic theory in economics, politics, social science and so on. This takes us to the heart of culture. Every culture, it can be argued is essentially comprised of three elements: the ideological; the sociological and finally, the technological. The ideological element comprises all the ideas in existence in a given society at a given period in history. Morality, magic, religion, art, myths and all the rest of it. The sociological comprises the property relations evident in a given society at a given time in history. At the moment, capitalist property relations cross-cut the globe. Finally, the technological comprises the techniques, skills, applied scientific (and other) knowledge etc.. that a particular culture has attained, again, at a particular time in history. Changes in the technological and sociological, so history teaches us, ultimately deliver transformations in the corresponding elements of a culture's ideology. The way we think, feel and act ultimately depends upon the specific economic system that a particular society has attained. It is from this perspective that I suggest economic and social factors need to be consciously addressed. We must first recognise the need for change and then, actively set about rearranging our social pattern as the only means of once more freeing up the potential in the now much abused technological capabilities. Yes culture matters, but there is no such thing as culture in abstraction from economic existence.




I am delighted that you saw fit to share your ideas with me. Thank you once again.


Colin

[xtremelady]

I like the way you formulated your argument, in-depth and each point very nicely articulated. I would have you know many of your points struck a cord within me, before expressing my own opinion. Truth is I h8 our current society and if could find a better system to support - I would wholeheartedly.

I am not sure capitalism is solely to blame, other factors such as overpopulation could easily apply to the expressed issues. don't you love the present system of delegating blame? Its not the ppls fault - but the systems! Cant agree with you there, cant totally disagree either.

I do feel in terms of capitalism, things have progressed beyond the point of no return. The evolutional viability, such has had in the current success of the human race can not be denied. Ultimately our current problem of overpopulation COULD BE CONTRIBUTED TO ITS SUCCESS. Turning to an alternative outlook would affect millions; and does the ideal constitute the right of doing thus?

Ppl have not yet become disenchanted enough with capitalism to seek out a better way, [to some extent whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant,] for essentially we will in this era; remain in the minority.